The Myth of the Shi‘i Mahdi
By Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi
The 15th of Sha‘baan is a very significant date, both to the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah. The Shi‘ah, however, have their own reason for ascribing significance to this night. To them it is the night of the birth of their twelfth Imam, the Hidden Mahdi.
Who is this Mahdi whose return to this world is so eagerly awaited by the Shi‘ah, and belief in whose existence in occultation forms such a integral aspect of the Shi‘i psyche? Before an adequate answer to this question may be given, there is a need to understand certain aspects concerning the Shi‘i doctrine of Imamah.
The cornerstone of the Shi‘i faith is the belief that the spiritual and temporal leadership of this Ummah after the demise of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam is vested in the Imam, who is appointed, like the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam himself, by Allah, and who enjoys all the distinctions and privileges of the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam.
However, they believe that Imamah, unlike Nubuwwah, can never come to an end. In this regard there is a well-known Shi‘i hadith which says that “the world cannot exist without an Imam”, and another which goes that “if the earth were to be without an Imam for a single day it would sink.”
Thus, when it came to pass that the first of those whom they regard as their Imams— Sayyiduna Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu— left this world, a problem arose. Some of those who regarded themselves as his followers claimed that he did not in fact die, but that he will return to establish justice. Others said that he was succeeded as Imam by his son Hasan, who was in turn succeeded by his brother Husayn.
When Husayn died there were some who claimed to follow their other brother Muhammad (known as Ibn al-Hanafiyyah) as their Imam. When he died his followers claimed that he was in reality alive, and that he will return in due time. Others amongst the Shi‘ah took Sayyiduna Husayn’s son, Ali, surnamed Zayn al-‘Abidin, as their Imam, and upon his death transferred their loyalties to his son, Muhammad al-Baqir.
When al-Baqir died there were once again elements from amongst the Shi‘ah who denied his death and claimed that he would return one day, while others took his son Ja‘far as-Sadiq as their Imam.
When he died there was mass confusion amongst the Shi‘ah: each of his sons Isma‘il, Abdullah, Muhammad, Zakariyya, Ishaq and Musa was claimed by various groups amongst the Shi‘ah to be their Imam. In addition to them there was a group who believed that Ja‘far did not really die, and that he would return one day.
More or less the same thing happened at the death of his son Musa. Some of the Shi‘ah denied his death, believing that he will return, and others decided to take as their new Imam one of his sons. Some of these chose his son Ahmad, while others chose his other son Ali ar-Rida.
After him they took as their Imam his son Muhammad al-Jawwad (or at-Taqi), and after him his son Ali al-Hadi (or an-Naqi). At the death of Ali al-Hadi they looked upon his son Hasan al-Askari as their new— and 11th— Imam.
The death of Hasan al-Askari
The above is a very brief synopsis of a tumultuous and confusing history— a history from which a dedicated researcher might extract some very revealing facts about the development of Shi‘ism.
However, that is not our concern at this moment. We have now arrived at the year 254 AH, the time when a major section of the Shi‘ah accepted as their Imam the 22-year old Hasan, son of Ali al-Hadi, and 10th lineal descendant of Sayyiduna Ali and Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anhuma. Six years later, in 260 AH, Hasan al-Askari, at the very young age of 28, is lying on his deathbed, but unlike any of his forefathers he leaves no offspring, no one to whom the Shi‘ah might appropriate as their new Imam.
The Shi‘ah who had been regarding Hasan al-Askari as their Imam were thrown into mass disarray. Does this mean the end of the Imamah? The end of the Imamah would mean the end of Shi‘ism. Were they prepared for that?
The confusion that reigned amongst the Shi‘ah after the death of Hasan al-Askari is reflected by the Shi‘i writer Hasan ibn Musa an-Nawbakhti, who counts the emergence of altogether 14 sects amongst the followers of Hasan al-Askari, each one with a different view on the future of the Imamah and the identity of the next Imam. It must be noted that an-Nawbakhti was alive at the time all of this was taking place. Another Shi‘i writer, Sa‘d ibn Abdullah al-Qummi, who also lived during the same time, counts 15 sects, and a century later the historian al-Mas‘udi enumerates altogether 20 separate sects.
There were four major trends amongst these various sects:
(1) There were those who accepted the death of Hasan al-Askari as a fact, and accepted also the fact that he left no offspring. To them Imamah had thus come to an end, just like Nubuwwah came to an end with the death of Rasulullah r . However, there were some amongst them who kept hoping for the advent of a new Imam.
(2) The second trend was one to which the student of the history of “succession to the Imamah” would be much more used to. This was the tendency to deny the death of Hasan al-Askari, and to claim that he would return in the future to establish justice upon earth. We have seen this tendency emerge amongst the Shi‘ah at more than one critical juncture in the history of the Imamah of the Shi‘ah; it is therefore only logical to expect it to resurface at a moment as critical as the death of Hasan al-Askari.
(3) The third trend was to extend the chain of Imamah to Hasan’s brother Ja‘far.
(4) The fourth trend was the claim that Hasan al-Askari did in fact have a son. It is the fourth trend which ultimately became the view of the dominant group in Shi‘ism.
The missing son
This trend was spearheaded by persons who had set themselves up as the representatives of the Imam, and who were in control of a network covering various parts of the Islamic empire— a network for the purpose of collecting money in the name of the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt.
All followers of the Imams were obliged to pay one fifth of their income to the representatives of the Imams. (This is a practice which continues up to today.) At the head of this network was a man called Uthman ibn Sa‘id al-‘Amri. His manner of resolving the predicament was unique: Hasan al-Askari was dead, he admitted, but he was not childless. He had a 4-year old son, Muhammad, with whom no one but he— Uthman ibn Sa‘id— could have contact. And from that point onwards he would act as the representative (wakeel) of the Hidden Imam and collect money in his name.
To the fact that Hasan al-Askari’s own family were completely ignorant of the existence of any child of his, and that his estate had been divided between his brother Ja‘far and his mother, Uthman ibn Sa‘id and his ilk responded by denouncing Ja‘far as al-Kadhdhab (the Liar).
In due time a fantastic story was brought into circulation about the union between Hasan al-Askari and a Roman slave-girl, who is variously named as Narjis, Sawsan or Mulaykah. She is mentioned as having been the daughter of Yusha‘ (Joshua), the Roman emperor, who is a direct descendant of the apostle Simon Peter. But history shows that there never was a Roman emperor of that name. The Roman emperor of the time was Basil I, and neither he nor any other emperor is known to have descended from Peter. The story goes on to tell of her capture by the Muslim army, how she eventually came to be sold to Hasan al-Askari, and of her supernatural pregnancy and the secret birth of the son of whom no one— aside from Uthman ibn Sa‘id and his clique— knew anything. Everything about the child is enveloped in a thick and impenetrable cloud of mystery.
The four representatives
Uthman ibn Sa‘id remained the “representative of the Hidden Imam” for a number of years. In all that time he was the only link the Shi‘ah had with their Imam. During that time he supplied the Shi‘i community with tawqi‘at, or written communications, which he claimed was written to them by the Hidden Imam. Many of these communications, which are stilpreserved in books like at-Tusi’s Kitab al-Ghaybah, had to do with denouncing other claimants to the position of representatives, who had come to realise exactly how lucrative a position Uthman ibn Sa‘id had created for himself. The Shi‘i literature dealing with Uthman ibn Sa‘id’s tenure as representative is replete with references to money collected from the Shi‘i public.
When Uthman ibn Sa‘id died, his son Abu Ja‘far Muhammad produced a written communication from the Hidden Imam in which he himself is appointed the second representative, a position which he held for about 50 years. He too, like his father, had to deal with several rival claimants to his position, but the tawqi‘at which he regularly produced to denounce them and reinforce his own position ensured the removal of such obstacles and the continuation of support from a credulous Shi‘i public.
He was followed in this position by Abul Qasim ibn Rawh an-Nawbakhti, a scion of the powerful and influential Nawbakhti family of Baghdad. Before succeeding Muhammad ibn Uthman, Abul Qasim an-Nawbakhti was his chief aide in the collection of the one-fifth taxes from the Shi‘ah. Like his two predecessors, he too had to deal with rival claimants, one of whom, Muhammad ibn Ali ash-Shalmaghani used to be an accomplice of his. He is reported in Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi’s book Kitab al-Ghaybah as having stated: “We knew exactly what we were into with Abul Qasim ibn Rawh. We used to fight like dogs over this matter (of being representative).”
When Abul Qasim an-Nawbakhti died in 326 AH he bequethed the position of representative to Abul Hasan as-Samarri. Where the first three representatives were shrewd manipulators, Abul Hasan as-Samarri proved to be a more conscientous person. During his three years as representative there was a sudden drop in tawqi‘at. Upon his deathbed he was asked who his successor would be, and answered that Allah would Himself fulfil the matter. Could this perhaps be seen as a refusal on his part to perpetuate a hoax that has gone on for too long? He also produced a tawqi‘ in which the Imam declares that from that day till the day of his reappearance he will never again be seen, and that anyone who claims to see him in that time is a liar.
Thus, after more or less 70 years, the last “door of contact” with the Hidden Imam closed. The Shi‘ah term this period, in which there was contact with their Hidden Imam through his representatives-cum-tax-collectors, the Lesser Occultation (al-Ghaybah as-Sughra), and the period from the death of the last representative onwards the Greater Occultation (al-Ghaybah al-Kubar). The Greater Occultation has already continued for over a thousand years.
Activities of the representatives
When one reads the classical literature of the Shi‘ah in which the activities of the four representatives are outlined, one is struck by the constantly recurring theme of money. They are almost always mentioned in connection with receiving and collecting “the Imam’s money” his loyal Shi‘i followers. There is a shocking lack of any activities of an academic or spiritual nature. Not a single one of the four is credited with having compiled any book, despite the fact that they were in exclusive communion with the last of the Imams, the sole repository of the legacy of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam.
When we look at the major sources upon which the Shi‘i faith is based, we find that most of them were written after the onset of the Greater Occultation. Those works, like al-Kafi, which was written during the latter decades of the Lesser Occultation, contain scarcely a reference to any of the four representatives as narrators from the Hidden Imam. Instead it is filled with thousands of reports which go back, via other channels, to the fifth and the sixth Imams. That is indeed strange, considering the fact that a man like Uthman ibn Sa‘id al-‘Amri is claimed to have been closely associated with the 10th, the 11th as well as the hidden 12th Imam, and also the fact that his son remained the Shi‘i community’s solitary link to that Imam for half a century. Would it not have been better and more authoritative for an author like al-Kulayni to report the hadith of his Imams from the Hidden Imam via his representatives who lived in Baghdad at the same time as he rather than to trace it all back to the fifth and sixth Imams through a myriad of doubtful channels?
But of course, he could not have done that, because the activities of those representatives did not have as much to do with authentically preserving the legacy of the Ahl al-Bayt as with the collection of wealth in their names.
In light of the fact that the Shi‘ah explain the necessity of Imamah in terms of the need for an infallible guide who serves as the repository of the legacy of Ahl al-Bayt, it appears extremely incongruous that this particular guide has left no sort of legacy of his own whereby the legacy of the Ahl al-Bayt can be known. Despite the fact that an infallible guide supposedly exists, it is upon fallible persons such as Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub al-Kulayni that the Shi‘ah must depend for that legacy.
The only bit of information that has come down to us regarding the Hidden Imam’s authentication of the hadith legacy of the Shi‘ah is what is recorded by Aqa Muhammad Baqir Khwansari in his book Rawdat al-Jannat. He writes that al-Kulayni’s book was presented to the Hidden Imam who looked at it and declared, “Hadha Kaafin li-Shi‘atina” (This is enough for our Shi‘ah). This is incidentally how the book received its name.
A report such as this creates a huge problem. It appears to be a ratification of the contents of the book al-Kafi by the infallible Imam. Yet, 9 centuries later the Shi‘i muhaddith, Mulla Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, would declare in his commentary on al-Kafi, named Mir’at al-‘Uqul, that 9,485 out of the 16,121 narrations in al-Kafi are unreliable. What did Majlisi know that the infallible Imam was so unaware of that he would authenticate a book, 60% of whose contents would later be discovered to be unreliable?
The Iraqi Shi‘i scholar, Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr, finds proof for the existence of the Hidden Mahdi in what he calls “the experience of a community”. The existence of the Hidden Imam, he postulates, was experienced by the Shi‘i community as a whole in the written communications that the representatives used supplied them with.
The crux of this argument lies in the fact that an individual experience might be doubted, but never that of experience of an entire community. However, the glaring flaw in this line of reasoning is that it very conveniently overlooks the part of the representatives as the individual go-betweens.
The community never had the privilege of seeing or meeting the person they believed to be the author of the tawqi‘at. Their experience was limited to receiving what the representatives produced. Even the argument of a consistent handwriting in all the various tawqi‘at is at best melancholy. There is no way one can get away from the fact that the existence of the Hidden Imam rests upon nothing other than acceptance of the words of the representatives.
The activities of those representatives furthermore go a long way to show that they were much, much more inspired by the desire to possess than by pious sentiments of any kind.
So when the Shi‘ah commemorate the birth of their twelfth Imam on the 15th night of Sha‘ban, or when they seek to apply ahadith in Sunni sources which speak of twelve khalifas to their twelve Imams, then let us ask them on what basis do they accept the existence of the twelfth one?
History bears witness to the existence of eleven persons in that specific line of descent, but when we come to the twelfth one, all we have is claims made by persons whose activities in the name of their Hidden Imam give us all the reason in the world to suspect their honesty and integrity.
In Islam, issues of faith can never be based upon evidence of this kind.
Editor’s note: The article by A.M. Jamsheed Basha first published in this space was found by an alert reader Mr. HASAN IQBAL to be based largely on the above article by Mr. Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi without proper attribution to the original author. Mr. Basha was given an opportunity to rework his article and give proper quotes and credit to the original author. He has not done so until now even though nearly 24hrs have passed since the request was first made to him. Since taking off the article from the site would also mean losing valuable comments made by a large number of readers, it is being replaced by the original article on which it was based. My apologies to readers of NewAgeIslam.com, Mr. Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi and ansar.org.
CRITIQUE OF THE TWELVER- IMAM SHIITES’ MAHDISM THEORY
IMAM MUHAMMAD BIN HASSAN ASKARI:
A HISTORICAL REALITY OR A PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTION?
The Twelver-Imam Mahdism theory was a complicated theory comprising of belief in the existence of the twelfth Imam: ‘Muhammad bin Hassan Askari’ and in his being the Awaited Mahdi. It admits that Imam Hassan Askari did not openly declare that he has a son. The theory rather, claims that, he hid him in secret due to the fear of Abbasid authorities, that he would overthrow their thrones, and due to that, they were searching for him to kill him, while still in the cradle.
Serious academic research on the inception of this theory however, reveals the existence of a long time interval between the two parts of the theory. As it was in the beginning, centered around the existence of a son for Imam Askari, who inherits the Imamate from him. But it later turned out to be belief in his being the Awaited and occult Mahdi. The theory found in the ‘Occultation of the Mahdi’, an interpretation of the non-declaration of his birth by his father, and his non-appearance after that.
In order to confirm the truth of this theory that plays a very great role in the history of Islam, and in shaping of the Twelver-Imam Shiite political thought, it is necessary to dissect the different components of this theory, and study each in depth and objectively. We would have firstly to find out: Was the Shiite Mahdism theory before the middle of the third (3rd) century of Hijrah, clearly known and restricted to the person of the twelfth Imam- Muhammad bin Hassan Askari, or it was ambiguous and a general abstract idea.
A- THE AMBIGUITY SURROUNDING THE IDENTITY OF THE MAHDI FROM AHL AL-BAYT
The history of the Imams from the household of the Prophet (Ahl al-Bayt) (peace be upon them), and their traditions being preserved by Imamate Shiite heritage, confirm the ambiguity surrounding the identity of Imam Mahdi and the non-declaration of his name or the time of his appearance. This was not due to the fear of the then authorities, but due to its not being specified beforehand. This was because Mahdism was initially mere idea and hope, hovering over the head of any one of them. This hope came to the fore when Imam Ali became the Caliph, and it became more intense after the murder of Imam Hussain bin Ali in Karbala. That was the time when many Shiites started preparing for revenge, and the overthrow of the Umayyad regime through armed revolt. The people were gathering around this or other Imam of the Ahl al-Bayt, with Mahdism being attributed to him. He will proclaim that and succeed, or die due to his proclamation and appearance. Some will then say, he has gone into hiding and occultation, and he will reappear in future.
If the identity of the Mahdi has been outlined previously, since the time of Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and the Shiites have reached consensus regarding it, they would not have gone to the left and to the right, and they would not have been perplexed, asking the Imams on the identity of the Mahdi.
Imam Muhammad bin Ali Baqir while addressing the Shiites said: “ You never cease looking towards one of us, saying: “ He is the one!” then he returns to his Lord, till the time when Allah will raise for this affair, one about whom you do not know whether he has been born or not, whether he has been created or not!” (1)
Kulayni says: Hakam bin Abi Na’im once came to Imam Baqir in Madinah and said to him: “ I have taken an oath between Rukn and Maqam (two holiest parts of the Ka’bah in Makkah) that if I meet you, I will not leave Madinah until I know whether you are the Qa’im of the family of the Prophet or not. “
Imam Baqir said to him: “ O Hakam, all of us stand by the commands of Allah”
Hakam however, was not satisfied with this general response, so he asked him specifically:
“Are you the Mahdi?” Baqir replied again in a general sense:“All of us guide to Allah” So Hakam asked more specifically and clearly:
“ Are you the owner of the sword and the one who inherited it?” For the third time the Imam responded vaguely:
“ All of us are owners of the swords, who inherited them.”
Hakam then asked (demanding) more clarity: “ Are you the one to kill to enemies of Allah?” Imam Baqir replied:
“O Hakam! How can I be the one, when I am 45 years of age? While the owner of this affair is closer to the time of breast-feeding than me, and lighter when he rides on the back of an animal.” (2)]
Kulayni and Nu’mani both say: “That Imam Sadiq did not like identifying the person of the Mahdi. Abu Hamzah one of his companions once asked him:
“ Are you the owner of this affair?” He replied: “ No.” He then said: “What about your son? “He said: “No.” He also said: “Is your grandchild the one?” He replied, “No.” Then he said: “Is he your great grandchild?” He replied!”No”. He (hakam) said at last “Then who is he?” He replied: “The one who will fill the world with justice as it was filled with injustice and tyranny, after the interval of Imams, as the Messenger of Allah was raised after the interval of Messengers (peace be upon them).” (3)
Supporting this is the fact that when Imam Sadiq convinced the poet Sayyid al-Himyari, who believed in Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah being the Mahdi, when he convinced him of his death, he did not specify for him who is the Mahdi. Al-Himyari said some poetic verses recording his transformation from the belief in the Mahdism of Ibn Hanafiyyah. But he did not mention the identity of the Mahdi: The meaning of the poetry is as follows:
“ My prolonged statements on the son of Khaulah was not in opposition, from my side, to the pure lineage. But what was reported from the inheritor of Muhammad (peace be upon him), and what he said cannot be falsified. That the owner of the affair will be lost, not being seen and concealed, like the fearful one, watching (people’s movements). The wealth of the lost will be distributed, as if his loss was in the grave. When it was reported that the son of Khaulah was lost (in occultation), we accepted it and went on speaking on it. We said he is the Mahdi and the Qa’im, in whose justice all will live. If you say no, your statement is the truth, and what I have been instructed is inevitable, without any prejudice. I testify to my Lord, that your statement is the evidence on all the people, the obedient and the disobedient. The owner of the affair and the Qa’im, whom I longed for delightfully, will go into occultation inevitably, may Allah bless him while in occultation. He remains (in it) for some time and then appear at other times and he will rule over the East and the West. This is my religions belief in secret and in the open, I will not mind even if I am blamed on it.”
Although Imam Sadiq, in an earlier report did not deny the possibility of his being the Qa’im as he did not emphasize it, Saduq reports from Ibn Abi Ja’far that he heard Sadiq saying: “ Woe onto the tyrants of the Arabs of a matter that has drawn closer.” He also reports from Sadir, and he from Abu Abdullah that he said: “ O Sadir, stay at your home, not leaving it and stay for days and nights. When it reaches you that Sufyan has appeared, come to us, even if on your feet.” (4) This reveals that Imam Sadiq was telling his companions of the imminence of his appearance. Muhammad bin Hassan Saffar however, reports in ‘Basair al-Darajat’ from Abu Basir that he one day came to Abu Abdullah and said to him:
- “May I be your ransom, I would like to touch your chest.” (Abu Basir was a blind man). He replied him:
- “ Do it”. He said: I torched his chest and his shoulders. He said, “Why this, O father of Muhammad?” Abu Basir said: “ May I be your ransom…I heard your father saying that the shoulders of the Qa’im are a bit down, spacious and broad between them.” Imam Sadiq then said:“O father of Muhammad, My father wore the shield of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and it did not fit him…. I also wore it and it was this and that…. It will be worn by the Qa'im, and it would be as it was with the Messenger of Allah tight and fit, as if he raised its two sides by two rings. The owner of this affair will not be one, over forty (40) years of age. (5)
Tusi reports in ‘Al-Ghaybah’ a dialogue conducted between Imam Sadiq and Abu Basir, who asked him “Has this affair a long period (before being accomplished) so we relax ourselves till it comes?” The Imam said to him: “ Yes, but you revealed the secret and spread it, so Allah increased (the period).” He reports another tradition, with more direct bearing and clarity, where the Imam Sadiq said: “This affair was in me, but Allah delayed it, and He will do what He wishes in my progeny after that.” (6) This shows that the hope of Mahdism was on Imam Sadiq during his time. Due to this, when he died and the circumstances were not ripe for him to achieve his desired hope (ambition) the one inherent in the hearts of the Shiites, some of his followers, some of those very close to him, denied and rejected the news of his death, insisting that he went into occultation, and that he will appear very soon. They said: He was the Awaited Mahdi. The leader of such people was the leader of Shiites in Basrah: Abdullah bin Nawus.
THE HOPE OF KADHIM BEING THE MAHDI
With the intensity of the Abbasid political pressure on Imam Musa bin Ja’far Kadhim, the hope of Shiites who believed in his Imamate, increased as to his declaration and revolt leading to a rebellion against the Abbasid rule. Most of the Shiites believed seriously that Musa was the Qa’im and the Mahdi. They reported many traditions from Baqir and Sadiq in identifying his person. They might have added to it many things from their sides, based on their eagerness, love and suffering.
When Imam Kadhim died after thirty-five years of waiting and hope, the general Musawite Shiite populace did not believe the story of his death. They insisted on believing in his occultation, and his being alive and confirming that he was the Awaited Mahdi, who will appear and fill the earth with justice and fairness as it has been filled with injustice and tyranny
RIDA DENIES THE LIKELIHOOD OF HIS BEING THE MAHDI
That hope of (the Mahdi) returned to the Shiites after about twenty (20) years. That was when the Abbasid caliph Ma’mun called on Imam Ali bin Musa Rida, in the year 200 A.H. to Khurasan, and he appointed his as the Crown Prince in the year 201 A. H. This revived the hope in the minds of the Shiites and led them to the belief in the possibility of Rida becoming the Awaited Mahdi.
Kulayni reports in ‘Al-Kafi’ that Ayub bin Nuh went to Imam Rida and said to him. “ I hope that you will be the owner of this affair, and that Allah may bring it to you without the use of sword. You have already received oath of allegiance, and money have been minted with your name (on it).” Imam Rida however shattered his expectations and rejected being the Mahdi. (7)
When the poet Da’bal al-Khuza’i came to Imam Rida and recited a well-known poem: “ Schools of verses not being recited, and the house of revelation without premises”, he pointed to the Mahdi in an ambiguous manner. He said: “ The Imam has emerged. It was necessary for him to emerge, based on the name of Allah and His blessings. He distinguishes for us between the truth and falsehood. He rewarded for favours and calamities.” He did not mention him by name.
The identification of Imam Mahdi with the twelfth Imam of the Ahl al-Bayt, as it is known by the Twelver-Imam Shiites today, took place in a later date long after the death of Imam Hassan Askari, and the claim of his having a son in secret, in the beginning of the fourth century of Hijrah approximately. This happened after the development of the theory of ‘divine’ Imamate and its transformation from infinite number to limiting them to only twelve (12), so that the sect will be a Twelver-Imam (sect).
Sheikh Saduq has mentioned in ‘Ikmal al-Din’, which he wrote in the middle of the fourth century of Hijrah, a big number of traditions from the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), and from the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them). Some of them point to the Qa’im or the Mahdi without specifying his name and the name of his father. Some of them emphasized and specified his position, as the twelfth (Imam), and that he is the son of Hassan Askari. As it came in another report that says that: Imam Rida asked the poet ‘Da’bal Al-Khuza’i’, after he has recited his poem in which he pointed to the Mahdi in an ambiguous manner. He said to him: “Do you know who will be that Imam? And when will he appear?” He replied: “ No, my master, except that I heard of the emergence of an Imam from among you (Ahl al- Bayt) who will purify the world of mischief and corruption, and fill it with justice as it was filled with injustice.” He said to him: “ O Da’bal, the Imam after me will be Muhammad, after Muhammad his son Ali, after Ali his son Hassan, and after Hassan his son, the Evidence, the Awaited Qa’im” in his Occultation whose obedience is mandatory at the time of his appearance.” (8)
These reports are weak traditions both in their chains of transmission and in their contents, for they cannot withstand academic investigation. We will discuss them in the chapter on the critique of the traditional (special) evidence, and its unsoundness will be established subsequently.
B – THE MAHDISM PHENOMENON IN ISLAMIC HISTORY
The several and frequent claims of being the Mahdi, extending to tens of such claims here and there, are what further confirm the ambiguity associated with the identity of the Mahdi among the members of the Prophet’s household. This even led to each sect or group to have more than one Mahdi. This phenomenon shows that the term ‘Mahdi’ because synonymous with revolt, freedom and justice and its re-emergence again in corrupt circumstances shows that the Muslim world is degenerating, day in day out.
Most of the stories of Mahdism in the early Islamic generations were connected to revolutionary political movements that confront injustice and persecution and gathered around one of the leaders, mostly being one of the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them). When such movements fail and the Imam dies before he emerges (as a political leader), or is killed in the confrontation, or hides in obscure circumstances, his followers used to differ. Among them will be those who will submit to and accept the reality, and start searching for another new Imam and a new occasion for revolt. Some of them will not submit to the reality and will not accept defeat, and will be quick at believing in hearsays, which have it that, the revolting Imam has fled and has hidden himself and has gone into occultation. It is usually the simple-minded people who fixed their hopes on a person, exaggerating his attributes. So it becomes very difficult for them to change their minds, for that will mean a failure and total breakdown.
THE MAHDISM OF IMAM ALI
The supporters of Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (peace be upon him) who revolted against the Umayyad rule, and fought in the Battle of the Camel and fought Muawiyah in the Battle of Siffin, who also confronted the Kharijites in Nahrawan, were pinning their hopes in the rule of the Imam, during which they will enjoy justice and equity. Their hope in the Imam was very high. That was why some of them were shocked by the news of his assassination. They could not believe the news of his (untimely) death.
Shiite historians like Nubakhti, Ash’ari al-Qummi, Al-Kashi were saying that: ‘A group of Shiites did not accept the death of the Imam and they claimed that: ‘Ali was not killed nor did he die, and that he will never be killed, nor will be die, till he chases the Arabs with his stick and fill the earth with justice and equity, as it has been filled with injustice and tyranny.’ (9)
We can interpret this statement of the Mahdism of Imam Ali and his Occultation, as due to shock of the death, its sudden nature, as well as very high hope…This was because those people, were living very far away from Kufah could not bear the news of the Martyrdom of the Imam, after their hope in him, to establish universal justice on earth. This led to the acceptance of ideas contrary to the reality.
THE MAHDISM OF IBN HANAFIYYAH
After the massacre of Karbala Shiite fury gathered around the leadership of Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah, the brother of Imam Hussain for the purpose of revenge and retaliation for the martyrs of Karbala… When Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah died in obscure circumstances in the year 81 A.H, a group of his supporters –Kissanites-said that: ‘He did not die and that he was staying in the Ridwi mountains between Makkah and Madinah. They believed that he was the Imam, the Awaited Mahdi who was predicted by the Prophet (peace be upon him), who will fill the earth with justice and equity. (10).
Sayyid Murtada Alam al-Huda interpreted the claims of the Kissanites on the Mahdism of Ibn Hanafiyyah as perplexity, which made them resort to it. (11)
Perhaps perplexity and confusion was their lot, because they have pinned their hopes on Ibn Hanafiyyah to wrestle power from the Umayyads’ hands. They were disappointed when the desired goal was not achieved. His followers from among the Kissanite Shiites were forced to invent a doctrine on his Mahdism, and the perpetuation of his life and his occultation in their attempt to preserve the hope ignited in their hearts. Moreso that the Shiites in those days were aware of any predetermined particular personality as the ‘Awaited Mahdi’.
THE MAHDISM OF ABU HASHIM
Support for the belief in the Mahdism of Ibn Hanafiyyah declined with the emergence of Abu Hashim Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hannafiyyah, as a new leader for the Shiites towards the close of the first century of Hijrah. Great hopes were pinned on him for attaining what his father was unable to attain… The crisis was repeated when Abu Hashim died without appearing (as the Mahdi)… This led to the belief of some Shiites in his hiding and occultation and saying that he was the Awaited Mahdi, and that he is alive and has not died. (12)
As for those who admitted the death of Abu Hashim, they preserved their hopes in their hearts, by waiting for the emergence of one of the children of Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah in the future. They did not specify any particular person. (13)
THE MAHDISM OF AL-TAYYAR
The Shiites who formed the main opposition group to the Umayyad rule, immediately gathered around a new leader from the Ahl al-Bayt, i.e. Abdullah bin Mu’awiyah bin Abdullah bin Jafar Al-Tayyar, who succeeded in establishing a Shiite state in Isfahan at the end of the Umayyad rule. He was, however defeated later, and was killed in obscure circumstances. Some of the Shiites could not bear the news of the collapse of the Shiite state. They claimed that Al-Tayyar was alive and has not died, and that he was staying in the Mountains of Isfahan, that he wouldl never die till he hands over the reins of affairs to a man from Banu Hashim, of the children of Ali and Fatimahh. (14)
CONFINING MAHDISM TO THE FATIMIDE FAMILY
The Shiite theory of Mahdism was not confined to the Fatimide family in the beginning, as the Kissanites-representing a stage in the development of Shiism-limited it to the household of Ali (Alawites), seeing possible in Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah and his children: or they limited it to them, but it extended to others outside their fold, like Abdullah bin Mu’awiyah bin Abdullah bin Ja’far al-Tayyar. It later developed and became confined only to the Fatimide family, in the children of Hassan and Hussain. At that time it was not confined to anyone of the two households. Due to this a group of Shiites believed in the Mahdism of Zayd bin Ali. And another group believed in the Mahdism of Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan bin Hassan (Dhu al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah).
As Zayd was killed after little while, his followers went to Dhu al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, Abdullah bin Hassan, his father has named him Muhammad and predicted at the time of his birth that he will be the promised Mahdi, who was foretold by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and has said on himregarding him, “His name is like my name, and the name of his father is like the name of my father”, as was popularly known in that period.
THE MAHDISM OF DHU AL-NAFS AL-ZAKIYYAH
Dhu al-Nafs Al-Zakiyyah hoped to rebel against the Umayyad rule, when the children of Hashim paid their allegiance to him at Abwa. Among them were, Ibrahim al-Imam, Saffah and Mansur. But it did not take long that the Abbasid rule was established, so those who paid allegiance to him deserted him, and another group of Shiites flocked around him. He left Madinah in the year 145 A.H and took over Makkah and Yemen, but he was killed after few months. Due to this a section of his followers were shocked and could not bear the news of the defeat, and did not believe the murder of the Mahdi, whose appearance they were waiting since very long time. They said that: ‘He was alive and did not die, nor was he killed, but was staying on the Mount of ‘Ilmiyyah’-between Makkah and Najd-till the time he will reappear. They held onto the Hadith of the prophet (peace be upon him), which says: “The Qa’im (Mahdi’s) name is like my name and his father’s name is like my father’s.” (15)
As there were no explicit, specific and well-known Hadiths, which explain the identity of the Mahdi, the followers of Dhu al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah have explained the Hadiths of Mahdism as referring to him, and have interpreted the Hadiths related to (the Mahdi) to also refer to him. They might have even fabricated some reports and attributed them to the Prophet (peace be upon him), in order to augment their theory and to support their Awaited Leader.
THE MAHDISM OF BAQIR
Some reports state that: ‘A section of the Shiites believed in the Mahdism of Imam Muhammad bin Ali Baqir (peace be upon him) depending on a report which says that: ‘The prophet (peace be upon him) said to Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “ You will meet him, so say my ‘Salam’ to him.” (16)
Kulayni says in ‘Al-Kafi’: ‘Imam Baqir used to confine to his companions that the emergence (of the Mahdi) and his appearance were imminent, and he advised them to maintain it as a secret. Some of them abandon all they were doing waiting for the time of the blowing of (the siren)’. (17)
THE MAHDISM OF SADIQ
After the death of Imam Baqir and the defeat of Muhammad bin Abdullah Dhu al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, and the triumph of the Abbasids, and the popularity of Imam Jafar bin Muhammad Sadiq (peace be upon him), reports became widespread on his Mahdism. (18)
Nubakhti reports that: ‘Some Shiites have reported from Imam Sadiq that he said: “If you see my head rolling to you from the mountain, you should not believe that, for I am your ‘Sahib’ (Mahdi).” And he also said: “If anyone informs you that he nursed me, washed my body (after death) and shrouded me, do not believe him, I am your companion (Sahib) and the companion of the sword.” (19) Hence a section of the supporters of Imam Sadiq denied admitting that he died. They also said that: “He is the Awaited Mahdi and that he is alive and did not die.” This group was known as the ‘Tawussites –attributed to Ajlan bin Tawus. (20) Among these group was Aban bin Uthman Al-Ahmar considered by al-Kashi to be one of the menof consensus (Ijma’), i.e. one of the closest people to Imam Sadiq. (21)
THE MAHDISM OF ISMA’IL
From the above, it seams that the various Mahdism theories were born with time and in different circumstances. They were more of hopes than dependence on clear and sound Hadiths. The belief in the Occultation evolves when an Imam dies before his appearance (as the Mahdi). The Shiites have never ever agreed on the Mahdism of a particular Imam previously, and ithas been the same from the beginning. At the time when some of them believed in the Mahdism of Imam Sadiq, some of them were fixing their hopes on the Mahdism of his son Isma’il. When Isma’il died during the lifetime of his father Imam Sadiq, his supporters denied his death, and invented a doctrine in his Occultation. They interpreted his funeral and burial by Imam Sadiq openly, as a drama aimed at concealing the fact that Isma’il has fled and has hid himself, as a preparation for his reappearance in the future! (22)
It is well known that the Shiites differed after the death of Imam Sadiq into six (6) different sects. The Isma’ilites believed in the life of Ismail, as well as his Imamate, Mahdism and occultation. Some of them after their despair in his Mahdism turned to accept the Mahdism of his son Muhammad. They then transferred Mahdism to the children of Isma’il till the appearance of the last of them, at the close of the third (3rd) century when he established the Fatimide rule in North Africa.
THE MAHDISM OF DIBAJ
Muhammad bin Jafar Sadiq (Al-Dibaj) who appeared in Makkah in the year 200 A.H., claimed that he was the Awaited Mahdi. He declared himself as the Caliph of the Muslims and took oath of allegiance from them, and was called the Leader of the faithful. (23)
Therefore, we can say that the theory of Mahdism meant, emergence, revolt,… and was never specific in a particular person.The theory of occultation used to evolve whenever any awaited Imam fails or dies without achieving his goals.
THE MAHDISM OF MUHAMMAD BIN ABDULLAH AL-AFTAH
The only exceptional case, which was contrary to the above- mentioned rule at that time, was the theory of the Mahdism of ‘Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Jafar Sadiq’. This person was not born at all and did not exist. Some of the Fathite Shiites invented a story of his existence in secret, after the death of his father Abdullah Aftah, who was believed by those Shiites to be the Imam after his father Sadiq. Those Shiites were shocked when Aftah died without an issue to succeed him in the Imamate. They believed in the necessity of the continuation of the Imamate in the children and the grand children (of the Imam), i.e. being inherited vertically. Due to this they could not shift to the belief in the Imamate of the brother of Abdullah, Musa bin Jafar. They therefore invented the idea of the existence of a son for him in secret: They said that: “His name corresponds to the famous Prophetic Hadith: His name is my name, the name of his father is the name of my father.” (24)
It cannot be ruled out that some people of vested interest and hypocrites from among the companions of the Imams might have fabricated this illusory story of the myth of the awaited Mahdi-Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Sadiq, so as to benefit from that financially, and claim being his deputy and receive money on his behalf. The stories on the existence of that illusory Mahdi were widespread in Yemen. And that he will appear, and fill the earth with justice and equity after it has filled with injustice and tyranny.
THE MAHDISM OF KADHIM
With the Abbasid revolution and its deviation from its goals of reform and the spread of corruption in their rule, it was only natural that their opponents gathered around any great personality from the Ahl al-Bayt, i.e. Imam Musa bin Ja’far Kadhim (peace be upon him) who was a symbol of piety, knowledge and devotion. The hope of his emergence and appearance (as the Mahdi) grew. In this way there were a lot of reports on the Mahdism of Imam Kadhim, and the belief that he was the Qa’im from the family of Muhammad (peace be upon him). Some of the Shiites went on reporting some narrations from Sadiq that: “It was inevitable that my son is the Qa’im (Mahdi) of this Ummah, and the Owner of the sword”. And “Musa is the Qa’im, and this is inevitable from Allah”. “Even if his head will roll to you from the mountains you should not believe, for he is the Qa’im” “The name of the Qa’im is the iron (knife) of the barber.” “As if I am seeing the black banner with a green patch on it lowered over the head of this person sitting” and the rest of such reports that lack consensus!
When Rashid arrested Imam Kadhim, many of the Shiites considered that as the first or minor Occultation. When he killed him and threw his pure body on the bridge in Baghdad, they refused accepting that or believing it, and they said, ‘It was an Abbasid drama’ and they said also that: ‘Imam Kadhim has gone into his second Occultation, and that he fled from the prison and he was alive and did not and will not die till he controls the East and the West of the world, and fill the whole of it with justice as it was filled with injustice, and that he was the Qa’im and the Mahdi.” (25)
Most of the children of the Imam claimed the same thing, so also most of his close companions like Al-Mufaddal bin Umar, Dawud al-Ruqa, Daris al-Kinani, Abu Basir, A’yun bin Abdul Rahman bin A’yun, Hadid al-Sabati and Hassan bin Qiyyama al-Sirafi. Ali bin Abi Hamiza wrote a book on the occultation. Similarly Ali bin Umar al- A’raj wrote another book on that.
Those Shiites were known as the Waqifites i.e. those who accepted the Imamate of Imam Kadhim, and refused faith in Ali bin Musa Rida.
Dawud al-Ruqa hesitated in admitting the Imamate of Rida, based on those agreed reports, which limited Mahdism to Kadhim and say that: “The seventh of us, is our Qa’im.” Imam Rida said to him, “The hope of the rising (appearance) of Kadhim depends on the will of Allah and it was not inevitable.” (26)
The Waqifites continued in their faith in the Mahdism and the occultation of Imam Kadhim for a long time. But they decreased in number with the passage of time, till the death of the theory and the extinction of those who believe in it, especially when Imam Rida confirmed the death of his father and said to them: “Allah’s evidence on His creation will be only through the Imam that is alive, and is well-known. Glory be to Allah. The Messenger of Allah died and Musa bin Ja’far did not die? Yes, by Allah he has died, and his wealth has been distributed and his slavegirls have been married.” He suspected those who claim that he did not die, of lying and said: “They are disbelievers in what Allah the Exalted has revealed on Muhammad (peace be upon him). If Allah exalted were to extend the lifespan of anyone due to the need of the creation to him, He would have extended the lifespan of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).” (27)
THE MAHDISM OF MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM
In the beginning of the third (3rd) century of Hijrah, in the year 219 A.H and during the days of the Caliphate of Mu’tasim, an Alawite rebellion took place in ‘Taliqan’ under the leadership of Muhammad bin Qasim. Mu’tasim however defeated and arrested him and carried him to Baghdad, detaining him in his place. He was able to run away and fled. The people differed on his affairs. Some of them said that: ‘He has died or fled’. Some of the Shiites said that: ‘He is alive and he will reappear and he is the Mahdi of this Ummah’. (28)
THE MAHDISM OF YAHYA BIN UMAR
Another Alawite Imam, namely, Yahya bin Umar marched out from Kufah in the days of Musta’in. He directed Hussain bin Isma’il to him, and he killed him. But some of his companions did not accept the news that he was defeated, and said that: ‘He was not killed, he only hid himself, and went into occultation, and that he was the Mahdi and the Qa’im, who will reappear another time’. (29)
THE MAHDISM OF MUHAMMAD BIN ALI HADI AND ASKARI
The Imamate Shiites differed among themselves in the middle of the third century of Hijrah on the identity of the Awaited Imam Mahdi. A section of them said that: He is Muhammad bin Ali Hadi, who died suddenly in Dajil. They believed in his occultation, like that of Isma’il bin Ja’far. They did not believe his death. Another section of them claimed that Imam Hassan Askari was the Mahdi. A third section of them believed in the existence and the Mahdism of a son for him (Askari) in secret, namely, Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Askari. Yet others said that: ‘He (the Mahdi) is not specified, and that he will be one of the members of the Ahl al- Bayt, not by appointment, and that he will be born and will appear in future.” (30)
THE MAHDISM OF AN UNKNOWN QA’IM
At last, two Shiite historians contemporaneous to the death of Imam Askari mentioned that: ‘A sect from the followers of the Imam said: “Hassan bin Ali has died, a confirmed death, and the Imamate has ceased till the time when Allah will raise a Qa’im from the family of Muhammad (peace be upon him) that have passed away. If He wills, He raises another person other than him, but from his forefathers. That is because the raising of the Qa’im and the appearance of the Mahdi is inevitable. The appearance of the Mahdi is on Allah. The reports came on the basis of that, so also sound narrations and a consensus of the Ummah. It is not possible to invalidate that. This is due to the fact that, the death of Hassan bin Ali has been confirmed, as his not leaving an issue has also been confirmed. So the Imamate has ceased, as he has no issue. Since it is not possible except in the children (of the Imam). It cannot go to the uncle or cousin or brother after Hassan and Hussain. The Imamate has thus ceased till the raising of the Qa’im from among them. If he appears and emerges (as the Mahdi) (his affairs) will continue till the Hour of judgment. (31)
All these several and conflicting claims of Mahdism movements express and show the ambiguity and vagueness of the concept of Imam Mahdi, and the likelihood of his being any of the Imams from the Ahl al-Bayt. That is the one who will appear with the sword, and establish the state and rule of truth. All the Shiite sects believed that he is from this Hashimite family, or that house of Alawites or Fatimide or Hassanite or Hussainite or Musawite house. And that he is this or that person. If the identity of the Mahdi has been determined before, , since the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) or the time of the previous eleven Imams, the Muslims would not have differed, nor would the Shiites, nor the Imamate Shiites, not the supporters of Imam Hassan Askari in determining the identity of the Mahdi. Some of them would not have believed ‘Imam Hassan Askari’ himself to be the Mahdi.
We conclude from all these that: The identity of the Mahdi was vague and not specific or determined in the time of Ahl al-Bayt. That the belief of his being the son of Hassan Askari evolved after supposing his existence in secret, and in an attempt to explain his absence from sight, and the non announcement of his birth by his father, on the basis of considering occultation as (an essential) attribute of the Mahdi.
The Truth of Imam Mehdi
A Shia viewpoint:
The full text is available here:
The doctrine of the Mahdi (Messiah) is not only shared by Muslims of all denominations, but is also held by non Muslims. All those with faith cling to the day when all of the harm, suffering that plague the earth will be removed and replaced by a pious man that shall implement justice across the globe, bring stability to the nations and peace and tranquillity to all men. If we look at the history of Islam from the death of the Prophet (s) till today we see all manner of charlatan have sought to mislead the masses by proclaiming themselves to be a Prophet or the Awaited Saviour Imam Mahdi (as). All Muslims are in agreement that the doctrine of Prophethood had come to an end with the death of Prophet Muhammad (s). Muslims whatever their Sect have never rejected the doctrine of Imam Mahdi (as), rather both agree in the correctness of this doctrine. Both are in agreement that this individual shall be responsible for spreading truth and justice upon the earth. Hadeeth literature also proves that one that denies the existence of the Imam (as) is a Kaafir. If a difference of opinion exists it is over the identity of Imam Mahdi (as). The majority Ahle Sunnah opinion believes that he (as) shall be born at a later date, and appears when Allah (swt) commands him to appear. The Shi’a believe that he was the last of the 12th Imams (as) and is in occultation, and shall appear when Allah (swt) wants him to appear. For us the need for of an Imam for all generations at all times is an absolute necessity. We believe that Allah (swt) would not leave the believers without an Imam (as) upon the earth, and we believe that the very lifespan of this earth is linked to his lifespan. When his lifespan expires, the earth will likewise come to an end. The earth depends on him (as) and when the veil of occultation is raised by Allah (swt) it will be through him that an earth destroyed by bloodshed and misery will be uprooted and restored to beauty and splendour, with the Kingdom of God on the earth. To this effect we have explicit authentic Shi’a traditions affirming what our Imam (as) shall attain when he reappears:Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from Hannan ibn Sadir from Ma‘ruf ibn Kharrabudh from abu Ja'far (a.s.) who has said the following. "We are only like the stars in the heavens. Whenever one star disappears (from sight) another one comes in view until you will point out with your fingers and make a gesture with your necks. Allah will cause your star to disappear from your sight. The descendants of ‘Abd al-Muttalib will all look similar as such that one would not know which is which. When your star will reappear then you must give thanks to Allah." Usool al-Kafi, Vol 1, Kitab al-Hujjat, H 895, Ch. 80, h 8Allamah al-Majlesi said: 'Muwathak Hasan' [ Mirat al-Uqool, v4 p45] Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from from his father from ibn abu "Umayr from abu Ayyub al-Khazzaz from Muhammad ibn Muslim who has said the following. "I heard abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) say, "The person in charge of this task (Leadership with Divine Authority) will disappear from public sight you must not reject it." Usool al-Kafi, Vol 1, Kitab al-Hujjat, H 897, Ch. 80, h 10Allamah al-Majlesi said: 'Hasan' [Mirat al-Uqool, v4 p46] A number of our people has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from Ali ibn al-Hakam from abu Ayyub al-Khazzaz from Muhammad ibn Muslim who has said the following. "When you would hear about the disappearance of your companion (Leader with Divine Authority) from public sight do not reject it." Usool al-Kafi, Vol 1, Kitab al-Hujjat, H 902, Ch. 80, h 15Allamah al-Majlesi said: 'Sahih' [Mirat al-Uqool, v4 p50] A number of our people has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from al-Hassan ibn Ali al-Washsha’ from Ali ibn abu Hamza from abu Basir from abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following. "It is necessary for the person in charge of this task (Leadership with Divine Authority) to disappear from the public sight and in his disappearance form public sight he must remain away from public. How good is Tayba, the city of Madina, for dwelling and living with thirty people is not frightening isolation." Usool al-Kafi, Vol 1, Kitab al-Hujjat, H 903, Ch. 80, h 16Allamah al-majlesi said: 'Muwathak' [Mirat al-Uqool, v4 p50] Through the same chain of narrators it is narrated from al-Washsha’ from Ali ibn al-Hassan from Aban ibn Taghlib who has said the following. "How would it be with you when a lagre scale attack would take place between the two mosques. Thereafter, knowledge will become obscure as the snake goes in to its hiding place. The Shi‘a (Muslims) will hold differences and one group will call the group liars and one group will spit onto the faces of the another." I then said, "May Allah take my soul in service for your cause, there will be nothing good in such conditions." The Imam (a.s.) said, "All goodness will be there." He said it three times. Usool al-Kafi, Vol 1, Kitab al-Hujjat, H 904, Ch. 80, h 17Allamah al-majlesi said: ‘Sahih’ [Mirat al-Uqool, v4 p51] Through the same chain of narrators it is narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from his father, Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from ibn Bukayr from Zurara who has said the following. " Al-Qa’im (the one who will rise with Divine Authority) will disappear before he will rise with divine power. He will suffer fear. The Imam (a.s.) pointed to his midsection, meaning thereby being murdered." Usool al-Kafi, Vol 1, Kitab al-Hujjat, H 905, Ch. 80, h 18Allamah al-majlesi said: 'Muwathak as Sahih' [Mirat al-Uqool, v4 p52] Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Muhammad ibn al-Husayn from ibn Mahbub from Ishaq ibn ‘Ammar who has said the following. "Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) has said, Al-Qa’im ((the one who will rise with Divine Authority) will have two disappearances. One of them will be for a short time and the other for a longer time. No one would know his place during the shorter disappearance except the special persons from his Shi‘a. During his longer disappearance no one will see him except very special persons from his friends." Usool al-Kafi, Vol 1, Kitab al-Hujjat, H 906, Ch. 80, h 19Allamah al-majlesi said: 'Muwathak' [Mirat al-Uqool, v4 p52] A number of our people has narrated from Sa‘d ibn ‘Abdallah from Ayyub ibn Nuh who has said the following. "I said to abu al-Hassan al-Rida (a.s.), ’Isma‘il hope that you will become the incharge of this task (Leadership with Divine Authority). Allah will drive it to your control with the sword now that the pledge of allegiance is offered to you and currency coins are printed in your name." The Imam (a.s.) said, "There has been no one from us with whom letters had been exchanged, being pointed out with the gesture of fingers, questions asked and properties delivered to him but that he was murdered or died in his bed. (It will be as such) until Allah will raise for this task (Leadership with Divine Authority) a young boy from us whose birth place and upbringing would be unknown (to people) but not his ancestors." Usool al-Kafi, Vol 1, Kitab al-Hujjat, H 912, Ch. 80, h 25Allamah al-Majlesi said: 'Mursal as Sahih' [Mirat al-Uqool, v4 p56] Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id from ibn abu ‘Umayr from Hisham ibn Salim from abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following. "Al-Qa’im (the one who will rise with Divine Authority) will rise and he will not be obliged to any one under any covenant, agreement or oath of allegiance." Usool al-Kafi, Vol 1, Kitab al-Hujjat, H 914, Ch. 80, h 27Allamah al-Majlesi said: ‘Sahih’ [Mirat al-Uqool, v4 p58] One would assume that a topic wherein both Sects are agreed on would not attract much need for disputes, unfortunately the followers of Mu’awiyah have still deemed it essential that this is also exploited to the Sunni masses as further evidence of the deviancy of the Shi’a. To enable this all manner of Nawasib has entered the arena desperate to incite hatred and violence against the Shi’a. The article ‘the myth of the Shi’I Mahdi’ is one such example, wherein the author has sought to mock and refute the Shi’a stance on Imam Mahdi (as). Azam Tariq then sought to take that hatred a stage further by especially citing those traditions that would appear the most extreme and disturbing to the Sunni masses, enabled through his usual method of tampering with Shi’a texts to create maximum hostility.In this article we shall seek to evidence the existence of Imam Mahdi (as) through reliance of Qur’anic verses, Hadeeth literature and Sunni texts. Thereafter we shall address the lies of Azam Tariq, and conclude with the spiritual aspect of our Imam (as).
This is a note to all those readers and well-wishers of the site who wrote to me since our site crashed and remained dysfunctional for almost a whole day. My apologies for the trouble this caused and also for not being able to write to all of you individually
No, this was not another hacking attempt, as most of you naturally surmised in view of our past experience. What happened was that for some reason that I still don’t know – it usually happens when some major newspaper or website reproduces some article from our site – there was a sudden surge of reader interest and our allotted bandwidth couldn’t cope with that. It took me some time to work out an appropriate package with our web-hosts. But Alhamdolillah now everything is in order; we have got five times more bandwidth than before and three times more disk space. So, hopefully, something like this will not happen again.
Thanks very much indeed for all your interest and kind concern.
Thanks very much indeed Aamir Mughal Saheb, for your excellent information. One can understand Israel’s behaviour, but how can the Allahwale Ayatullahs start double-dealing in this manner must cause a lot of disquiet. Not that these facts are not widely known, but every time one is reminded of them one finds it incredible that people many of us believe to be absolutely incorruptible are also made after all of the same clay as the Zionists of Israel or the Imperialists of the West, for whom the only thing that matters is worldly power. There is not much difference between professed followers of Yazid or Ahl-e-Bait, after all. [Sultan Shahin]
Dear Sultan Sahab,
Thanks for the compliment. Now some words from the same source on Rampant General Zia.
Since Pakistani Muslims often itch for Islam and Islamic Law for Governance therefore read the below given History of Pakistan in the light of Quranic Verse and then reach to any conclusion you want and then tell me do we even deserve to complain against the American Colonial Behaviour in Pakistan? And that too after we violated a very simple Quranic Verse [every word of Quran is sacred for these Fasadi Mullahs] and this verse violated by General Zia [1977-1988] and his Spiritual God Father that Najis[Filth] Mawdudi and equally Najis [Filth] Jamat-e-Islami.
O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. [AL-MAEDA (THE TABLE, THE TABLE SPREAD) Chapter 5 - Verse 51]"Quote"General Muhammad Zia ul-Haq seized power in Pakistan in a 1977 coup and declared himself president. The US stopped all economic and military aid to Pakistan as a result of the coup and Zia ruled cautiously in an attempt to win international approval. But immediately after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan , the US allies with Zia and resumes aid. This allows Zia to use Islam to consolidate his power without worrying about the international reaction. He passes pro-Islamic legislation, introduces Islamic banking systems, and creates Islamic courts. Most importantly, he creates a new religious tax which is used to create tens of thousands of madrassas, or religious boarding schools. These schools will indoctrinate a large portion of future Islamic militants for decades to come. [Gannon, 2005, pp. 138-142] Zia also promotes military officers on the basis of religious devotion. The Koran and other religious material becomes compulsory reading material in army training courses. “Radical Islamist ideology began to permeate the military and the influence of the most extreme groups crept into the army,” journalist Kathy Gannon will write in her book I is for Infidel. [Gannon, 2005, pp. 138-142] The BBC will later comment that Zia’s self-declared “Islamization” policies created a “culture of jihad” within Pakistan that continues until present day. [BBC, 8/5/2002] CIA covert weapons shipments are sent by the Pakistani army and the ISI to rebel camps in the North West Frontier province near the Afghanistan border. The governor of the province is Lieutenant General Fazle Haq, who author Alfred McCoy calls Pakistani President Muhammad Zia ul-Haq’s “closest confidant and the de facto overlord of the mujaheddin guerrillas.” Haq allows hundreds of heroin refineries to set up in his province. Beginning around 1982, Pakistani army trucks carrying CIA weapons from Karachi often pick up heroin in Haq’s province and return loaded with heroin. They are protected from police search by ISI papers. [McCoy, 2003, pp. 477] By 1982, Haq is listed with Interpol as an international drug trafficker. But Haq also becomes known as a CIA asset. Despite his worsening reputation, visiting US politicians such as CIA Director William Casey and Vice President George H. W. Bush continue to meet with him when they visit Pakistan. Haq then moves his heroin money through the criminal Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). A highly placed US official will later say that Haq “was our man… everybody knew that Haq was also running the drug trade” and that “BCCI was completely involved.” [Scott, 2007, pp. 73-75] Both European and Pakistani police complain that investigations of heroin trafficking in the province are “aborted at the highest level.” [McCoy, 2003, pp. 477] In 1989, shortly after Benazir Bhutto takes over as the new ruler of Pakistan, Pakistani police arrest Haq and charge him with murder. He is considered a multi-billionaire by this time. But Haq will be gunned down and killed in 1991, apparently before he is tried. [McCoy, 2003, pp. 483] Even President Zia is implied in the drug trade. In 1985, a Norwegian government investigation will lead to the arrest of a Pakistani drug dealer who also is President Zia’s personal finance manager. When arrested, his briefcase contains Zia’s personal banking records. The manager will be sentenced to a long prison term. [McCoy, 2003, pp. 481-482] In November 1982, US Representative Charlie Wilson (D-TX) travels to Islamabad, Pakistan, and meets with President Muhammad Zia ul-Haq. He promises Zia to deliver a crucial weapons system that has so far been denied by the US—the latest radar systems for Pakistan’s F-16 fighter planes. Wilson also meets with CIA Station Chief Howard Hart, who is in charge of providing support for the Afghan resistance to the Soviets. He urges Hart to expand the program and stresses that vast amounts of money can be made available. [Crile, 2003, pp. 106-129] The next month, President Zia comes to the US to meet with President Reagan. Zia first meets with Wilson in Houston and expresses his gratitude for helping Pakistan acquire F-16 radar systems. Wilson then broaches the subject of Pakistan secretly purchasing arms from Israel for the Afghan War. Zia agrees to this in principle. [Crile, 2003, pp. 131-132] According to Alfred W. McCoy, author of The Politics of Heroin, in 1983 Pakistani President Muhammad Zia ul-Haq allows Pakistani drug traffickers to deposit their drug profits in the BCCI bank without getting punished. The criminal BCCI bank has close ties to the Pakistani government and the US funding of the Afghan war. It will be shut down in 1991. BCCI also plays a critical role in facilitating the movement of Pakistan’s heroin money. By 1989, Pakistan’s heroin trade will be valued at $4 billion a year, more than all of Pakistan’s legal exports. [McCoy, 2003, pp. 480] Representative Charlie Wilson (D-TX) travels to Israel where he meets with Zvi Rafiah and other Israeli officials. From Israel he travels to Egypt and then Pakistan, where he secretly negotiates a major weapons deal with Pakistan (see November-December 1982) on behalf of the Israelis in support of the mujaheddin fighting Soviets in Afghanistan. Among other things, the deal includes the delivery of T-55 tanks. Author George Crile will later comment, “The Israelis were hoping this deal would serve as the beginning of a range of under-the-table understandings with Pakistan that the congressman would continue to quietly negotiate for them.” [Crile, 2003, pp. 141] In 1984, Senator Paula Hawkins (R-FL) meets with Pakistani President Muhammad Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan. During the meeting, she mentions that she is concerned about a Pakistani bank that is laundering money out of the Cayman Islands. Her staff later clarifies to Zia that she was referring to BCCI (which technically is not a Pakistani bank, but almost all of its top officials are Pakistani). As a result, Abdur Sakhia, the top BCCI official in the US, meets with Hawkins in the US a short time later and assures her that BCCI is not laundering money out of the Cayman Islands. Then officials from the Justice Department, State Department, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) meet with Hawkins’s staffers and assure them that BCCI is not the subject of any investigation. Weeks later, the State Department formally notifies the Pakistani government that BCCI is not under investigation. As a result, Hawkins drops her brief interest in BCCI. However, by this time the State Department, Justice Department, and DEA have all been briefed by the CIA about BCCI’s many criminal activities. Apparently, this information is deliberately kept from the senator. [Beaty and Gwynne, 1993, pp. 324-325] NBC News later reports that CIA Director William Casey secretly meets with the head of the criminal Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) from 1984 until 1986, shortly before Casey’s death. The NBC report, quoting unnamed BCCI sources, will claim that Casey met with BCCI head Agha Hasan Abedi every few months in a luxury suite at the Madison Hotel in Washington. The two men allegedly discussed the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages transactions and CIA weapons shipments to the mujaheddin in Afghanistan. The CIA denies all the allegations. [Associated Press, 2/21/1992] But books by Time magazine and Wall Street Journal reporters will corroborate that Casey repeatedly met with Abedi. [Scott, 2007, pp. 116] Casey also meets with Asaf Ali, a BCCI-connected arms dealer, in Washington, DC, and in Pakistan. On one occasion, Casey has a meeting in Washington with Abedi, Ali, and Pakistani President Muhammad Zia ul-Haq. [Beaty and Gwynne, 1993, pp. 308] Pakistan’s president Muhammad Zia ul-Haq is killed in an airplane crash. The plane went into a steep dive, then recovered regaining altitude. Then it dove a second time and crashed. [Yousaf and Adkin, 1992, pp. 91-92] ISI Director Akhtar Abdur Rahman, US ambassador to Pakistan Arnold Raphel, and other Pakistani and US officials are also killed. A joint US-Pakistani investigation fails to definitively explain what caused the crash. [Coll, 2004, pp. 178-179] According to Mohammad Yousaf, the ISI’s Afghan Bureau chief, the crash was due to sabotage. Yousaf does not know who was responsible, but later says that the US State Department was instrumental in the cover-up. Yousaf points out several reasons why the State Department might want to cover up the crime even if the US were not involved in the assassination itself. [Yousaf and Adkin, 1992, pp. 91-92] Richard Clarke, a State Department analyst who later will become counterterrorism “tsar” for Presidents Clinton and Bush Jr., believes that Zia’s death and the destruction of a major weapons stockpile used by the CIA and ISI around the same time were both ordered by the Soviets as revenge for being defeated in Afgnanistan. Clarke says, “I could never find the evidence to prove that the Soviet KGB had ordered these two acts as payback for their bitter defeat, but in my bones I knew they had.” [Clarke, 2004, pp. 50] "UNQUOTE"
There is not much difference between professed followers of Yazid or Ahl-e-Bait, after all. [Sultan Shahin]
Yes, there is no difference:
Spiritual heritage of Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini - 1http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/02/spiritual-heritage-of-sayyid-ruhollah.htmlSpiritual heritage of Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini - 2http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/02/spiritual-heritage-of-sayyid-ruhollah_16.htmlSpiritual heritage of Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini - 3http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/02/spiritual-heritage-of-sayyid-ruhollah_6272.htmlSpiritual heritage of Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini - 4http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/02/spiritual-heritage-of-sayyid-ruhollah_3824.htmlSpiritual heritage of Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini - 5http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/02/spiritual-heritage-of-sayyid-ruhollah_7522.htmlSpiritual heritage of Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini - 6http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/02/spiritual-heritage-of-sayyid-ruhollah_9375.htmlSpiritual heritage of Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini - 7http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/02/spiritual-heritage-of-sayyid-ruhollah_9632.htmlSpiritual heritage of Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini - 8http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/02/spiritual-heritage-of-sayyid-ruhollah_4523.html
Thanks very much indeed Aamir Mughal Saheb, for your excellent information. One can understand Israel’s behaviour, but how can the Allahwale Ayatullahs start double-dealing in this manner must cause a lot of disquiet. Not that these facts are not widely known, but every time one is reminded of them one finds it incredible that people many of us believe to be absolutely incorruptible are also made after all of the same clay as the Zionists of Israel or the Imperialists of the West, for whom the only thing that matters is worldly power. There is not much difference between professed followers of Yazid or Ahl-e-Bait, after all.
I am referring to the post that quotes New Yorker:
“Israel secretly changes its policy towards Iran, and now seeks a level of rapprochement with that nation. Israeli defense minister Ariel Sharon proposes that President Jimmy Carter, who is struggling to find a diplomatic means to get the 52 American hostages released, begin secretly selling US arms to Iran. Carter angrily refuses. But unbeknownst to Carter, Israel will begin selling its own arms to Iran shortly thereafter. Interestingly, some officials in the US State Department and the CIA know of the Israeli arms sales to Iran.” [New Yorker, 11/2/1992]
'Tum Amir Moghul Bhi ho, Jamshed Basha Bhi ho, Chor bhi ho, Be-Iman bhi ho, Kahne ko to Musallmaan bhi ho, Per Ye to Bataao, Kya INSAAN bhi ho'? Ps: Dushmana-e-Ahlebait sirf Haiwaan ho sakte hain Insaan nahi!!!! [Mrs. Sayyeda Kaneez]
More information on these Cutthroats Ayatullahs of Iran particularly Khomeini and their Dirty Dealings with Drug Laundering Bank BCCI [Agha Hasan Abedi - Bawaz-e-Baland Naara-e Salawath], US CIA, Israel and Saudi Arabia as well. Read and Wake up because I will give the references and these References aren't concocted like Islamic History compiled by Tabari and Abu Mikhnaf.."QUOTE"
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=agha_hasan_abedi_1 http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=irancontraaffairAbout 500 Iranian students take over the American Embassy in Tehran and hold 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. The Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) is one of the groups that supports the take-over. [US Department of State, 4/30/2003; PBS, 1/15/2006] Israel secretly changes its policy towards Iran, and now seeks a level of rapprochement with that nation. Israeli defense minister Ariel Sharon proposes that President Jimmy Carter, who is struggling to find a diplomatic means to get the 52 American hostages released, begin secretly selling US arms to Iran. Carter angrily refuses. But unbeknownst to Carter, Israel will begin selling its own arms to Iran shortly thereafter. Interestingly, some officials in the US State Department and the CIA know of the Israeli arms sales to Iran. [New Yorker, 11/2/1992] According to a later account by Robert Sensi, a young CIA agent with excellent contacts among prominent Arabs, the Republican National Committee opens what Sensi calls “a secret channel to Iran.” Sensi is not only alluding to the secret plans for the US to sells arms to Iran, which is just developing , but to the “October Surprise” of the November 1980 US presidential elections . Sensi will bring the matter up to author and fellow CIA agent Larry Kolb in a Washington, DC, hotel bar in 1986, but will not go into detail. Sensi will note that CIA Director William Casey has been involved in the US’s secret dealings with Iran since the outset, as has Robert Carter, the deputy director of Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign. Sensi will say that Casey, Carter, and the other participants are using the overseas political organization Republicans Abroad as cover for more covert activities. The organization is “a great drawing card,” according to Sensi, who is a member. “It gives us access to embassies and a lot of people we would have had a hard time getting to without the cachet of representing the ruling party in the United States.” Writing in 2007, Kolb will reflect on the Republican Party’s “own in-house team of covert operatives, as capable of conducting espionage and sabotage for the Republican Party as for the CIA. It seemed the Republicans were still doing what they had been caught doing during Watergate. Spying on and sabotaging the Democrats. Ratf_cking, as the Republican operatives called it . Coming just a few years after the Watergate national Passion Play and all it had put our country through, this seemed flagrant and foul, like sleaze squared. And like politics-as-usual.” [Kolb, 2007, pp. 28-29] Iraq invades Iran, officially beginning a nine-year war between those two countries, though Iraq insists that Iran has been launching artillery attacks against Iraqi targets since September 4. The overarching reason, according to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, is over control of the Shatt al-Arab, the geographically critical waterway between Iran and Iraq that empties into the Persian Gulf. (Iraq signed over partial control of the Shatt al-Arab to Iran in 1975, but reclaimed the waterway in 1979 after the fall of Iran’s Shah Reza Pahlavi; Iraq also has hopes to conquer the oil-rich Iranian province of Khuzestan.) The United States will provide covert military support to both Iran and Iraq (see 1981-1988) during the war. [Infoplease, 2007] Salem bin Laden, Osama’s oldest brother, described by a French secret intelligence report as one of two closest friends of Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd who often performs important missions for Saudi Arabia, is involved in secret Paris meetings between US and Iranian emissaries this month, according to a French report. Frontline, which published the French report, notes that such meetings have never been confirmed. Rumors of these meetings have been called the “October Surprise” and some have speculated that in these meetings, George H. W. Bush negotiated a delay to the release of the US hostages in Iran, thus helping Ronald Reagan and Bush win the 1980 Presidential election. All of this is highly speculative, but if the French report is correct, it points to a long-standing connection of highly improper behavior between the Bush and bin Laden families. [PBS Frontline, 2001] Israeli officials secretly ask Reagan administration officials for authorization to transfer arms of US origin to Iran. Officials in the Departments of Defense and State have known of Israeli arms sales to Iran that predate Reagan’s installation as president and the freeing of the American hostages, and since Reagan’s ascension to power, plans for US arms sales to Iran have been in the works . Secretary of State Alexander Haig tells Israel that it is acceptable “in principle” for Israel to sell only F-4 fighter plane parts, and the US must approve specific arms-sales lists in advance. It shortly becomes evident, according to State Department documents leaked years later to the press, that Israel is not submitting lists for approval, and is selling US-made arms to Iran far in excess of spare parts for a specific model of fighter jet. (By the mid-1980s, officials will acknowledge that several billion dollars’ worth of ammunition and parts worth would flow from Israel to Iran each year.) Little oversight is exercised on the arms sales; one US ambassador to the region will say in 1992, “[I]t is probable that those who were to serve as their proxies—Israel and private international arms dealers—had agendas of their own, and the end result was that more arms were shipped than anyone in the administration wanted.” The Israeli arms transfers also violate the Arms Export Control Act, which requires written permission from the US for a nation to transfer US-made arms to a third party, and requires the president to immediately inform Congress when such transfers take place. [New Yorker, 11/2/1992] Vice President George H. W. Bush asks CIA agent and National Security Council official Donald Gregg to serve as his national security and foreign policy adviser. Gregg agrees, and retires from the CIA. Gregg will work closely with Bush and former CIA agent Felix Rodriguez to help put together a covert operation to supply the Nicaraguan Contras with arms, cash, and supplies. [Spartacus Schoolnet, 12/28/2007] After winning a sweeping election victory against President Jimmy Carter in November 1980, Ronald Reagan is sworn in as US president. The same day that Reagan is sworn in, Iran releases the remaining 52 hostages it has held captive at the US Embassy in Tehran for 444 days. [PBS, 2000] The newly installed Reagan administration publicly maintains a hard line against Iran, a nation vastly unpopular among Americans who have not forgiven that nation for holding 52 of its citizens hostage for well over a year and murdering a CIA station chief. (Years later, Vice President Bush will call it “an understandable animosity, a hatred, really,” and add, “I feel that way myself.”) President Reagan’s secretary of state, Alexander Haig, says bluntly, “Let me state categorically today there will be no military equipment provided to the government of Iran.” Yet within weeks of taking office, Reagan officials will begin putting together a continuing package of secret arms sales to Iran. [New Yorker, 11/2/1992] According to investigative journalists Joe and Susan Trento, the arrest of former CIA agent Edwin Wilson, who was involved in business dealings with Libya, has serious consequences for US terrorism policy: “Throughout the 1980s the United States used its intelligence services to divert blame from Iran and Hezbollah onto Libya as part of its entanglement in Iran-Contra with the so-called moderate Iranians with whom the Reagan administration dealt. Ever since international arms dealer Edwin Wilson had been captured and imprisoned in the early 1980s, American intelligence and the White House had labeled Libya a rogue nation, and Libyan dictator Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi a terrorist leader. The intelligence operation went so far that the United States actually recruited a gang of Lebanese criminals to pretend to be a cell of Libyan-backed terrorists conducting violent acts around the world.… These activities, all choreographed by the CIA, were fed to alliessuch as West Germany as authentic intelligence that implicated Libya for terrorists acts that were either fake or were, in reality, authorized by Iran and carried out by Hezbollah and other surrogate groups.” Benefit to Iran - This policy apparently benefits Iran: “The Reagan administration had given the Iranians plenty of cards to play. The biggest card was the help it had provided making Libya seem like the ultimate source of all terrorist acts.… When the Reagan administration turned Libya into a vicious terrorist nation operating throughout Europe, that gave Iran the perfect opening for retribution.” No action against Hezbollah - In addition, it prevents the US from taking action against Hezbollah, even though Hezbollah is killing Americans: “Because of the Iran-Contra scandal—the selling of weapons to Iran to fund the war in Central America—the Reagan administration ended up protecting Iran’s number one terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, while at the same time Hezbollah’s terrorists were killing and kidnapping hundreds of Americans. While secretly working with the Iranian government, the Reagan administration manipulated intelligence to blame Libya for terrorist attacks for which Hezbollah was responsible. During the 1980s Hezbollah killed and terrorized hundreds of Americans in Beirut, bombing the US Marine barracks, blowing up the CIA station, and killing State Department employees in a bomb attack on the US embassy. Hezbollah did all this with the help of local militia leaders whom the United States relied on as its secret conduits to Iran for its sale of weapons.” [Trento and Trento, 2006, pp. xvi, 64-5] A “considerable illicit traffic” in US arms sales to the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran has developed by this time to assist Iran in the war with Iraq. South Korean and Israeli companies are used as intermediaries. According Alan A. Block, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, many of these sales are known of and approved by the CIA and the Reagan administration. Block points out that these arms sales precede the hostage incidents which, it is later claimed, are the motivation for the arms sales to Iran. [Preece, 1984, pp. 25; Block, 2000] Vice President George Bush hosts a secret meeting with his foreign policy adviser, Donald Gregg , and former CIA agent Felix Rodriguez. The meeting is the first impetus of the National Security Council (NSC)‘s initiative to secretly, and illegally, fund the Nicaraguan Contras in an attempt to overthrow that country’s socialist government. Rodriguez agrees to run a central supply depot at Ilopango Air Base in El Salvador. In a memo to NSC chief Robert McFarlane, Gregg will note that the plan is rooted in the experience of running “anti-Vietcong operations in Vietnam from 1970-1972.” Gregg will also note that “Felix Rodriguez, who wrote the attached plan, both worked for me in Vietnam and carried out the actual operations outlined above.” [Spartacus Schoolnet, 12/28/2007] Rodriguez and Gregg, along with others such as Watergate burglar Frank Sturgis, were part of the CIA’s “Operation 40,” an assassination squad that operated in Cuba and the Caribbean during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Rodriguez tried at least once, in 1961, to assassinate Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. In 1967, Rodriguez interrogated and executed South American revolutionary Che Guevara. He was part of the infamous and shadowy Operation Phoenix during the Vietnam War. [Spartacus Schoolnet, 1/17/2008] GeoMiliTech (GMT) Consultants Corporation is established by conservative talk show host Barbara F. Studley. A number of far right-wing, high ranking American and Israeli military officials become involved in the company, which opens corporate offices in both Washington and Tel Aviv. Studley is the company’s president. Ron S. Harel, a veteran of the Israeli Air Force, will become its executive vice president. US Navy Captain Bruce E. Herbert and Joel Arnon, a former assistant director general in the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Relations, become vice presidents. The company begins selling arms to Iran through Israel and North Korea. One of GMT’s partners in this enterprise is Israeli Military Industries. Israel’s political motives are clear, according to Alan A. Block, a professor at Pennsylvania State University: Israel wants to ensure that the Iran-Iraq war is as long and destructive as possible. The motivations of the US officials involved (beyond profit making) are less clear. Block says he believes that the founding of GMT marks the beginning of US weapons sales to Iran. [Block, 2000] The US launches Operation Staunch, advising other countries not to sell weapons to Iran to force a negotiated settlement to the Iran-Iraq war. [PBS, 2000] NBC News later reports that CIA Director William Casey secretly meets with the head of the criminal Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) from 1984 until 1986, shortly before Casey’s death. The NBC report, quoting unnamed BCCI sources, will claim that Casey met with BCCI head Agha Hasan Abedi every few months in a luxury suite at the Madison Hotel in Washington. The two men allegedly discussed the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages transactions and CIA weapons shipments to the mujaheddin in Afghanistan. The CIA denies all the allegations. [Associated Press, 2/21/1992] But books by Time magazine and Wall Street Journal reporters will corroborate that Casey repeatedly met with Abedi. [Scott, 2007, pp. 116] Casey also meets with Asaf Ali, a BCCI-connected arms dealer, in Washington, DC, and in Pakistan. On one occasion, Casey has a meeting in Washington with Abedi, Ali, and Pakistani President Muhammad Zia ul-Haq. [Beaty and Gwynne, 1993, pp. 308] Duane Clarridge, a CIA officer who has cultivated contacts with Nicaraguan rebels, introduces National Security Council staffer Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North to the leaders of the Nicaraguan “Contras,” currently operating out of Honduras. The Contras are dedicated to the overthrow of the Socialist, democratically elected Sandinista government. Because the US government views the Sandinistas as aligned with the Communist government of Cuba, it too opposes the Sandinistas, and views the Contras as a band of “freedom fighters” worthy of support. Clarridge tells the Contra leaders that if Congress cuts off aid to the Contras in light of recent revelations that the CIA mined Nicaraguan harbors, North will continue working with them on a covert basis. [New York Times, 11/19/1987] Quoting a French intelligence report posted by PBS Frontline, The New Yorker reports, “During the nineteen-eighties, when the Reagan administration secretly arranged for an estimated $34 million to be funneled through Saudi Arabia to the Contras in Nicaragua, [Osama’s eldest brother] Salem bin Laden aided in this cause.” [PBS Frontline, 2001; New Yorker, 11/5/2001] The US tilts ever more sharply towards Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, even though the Reagan administration continues to maintain a posture of overt neutrality in the conflict. The administration has provided covert military aid for both sides in the struggle , and has been divided over which regime to support . It is already involved in “Operation Staunch,” a program designed by Secretary of State George Shultz to stem the flow of weapons to Iran. Now, some officials are arguing that it is time to reverse that course. Graham Fuller, the CIA’s national intelligence officer for the Middle East, writes two controversial secret memos advocating that the administration begin providing support for Iran against Iraq. Fuller is presenting a position long held by national security director Robert McFarlane and two of McFarlane’s aides, Oliver North and Howard Teicher. This pro-Iran group has recently been joined by CIA director William Casey. Both McFarlane and Casey are supportive of Fuller’s memo. Fuller writes in a May 17 memo, “Our tilt to Iraq was timely when Iraq was against the ropes and the Islamic revolution was on a roll. The time may now have to come to tilt back.” Fuller argues that the US should once again authorize Israel to ship US arms to Iran. Ironically, this is the mirror image of Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger’s argument in favor of supporting Iraq: the US must counter one covert policy with another (see Early 1982). The pro-Iranian coalition within the administration gives scant consideration to the hostage-taking of seven Americans by Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shi’ite militant group with strong ties to Iran’s theocratic regime. On May 20, Fuller circulates a second memo, called a “Special National Intelligence Estimate” (SNIE), that is only read by a handful of senior White House officials (Ronald Reagan is one of the recipients; George Bush is not). Fuller’s memo is written almost entirely for Reagan’s benefit, and in its arguments, becomes a basis for renewed arms sales to Iran and the resulting Iran-Contra scandal. Fuller evokes one of Reagan’s favorite themes, the trouncing of the Soviet Union in the global arena: “We know that the USSR views Iran as ‘the prize’ in the Gulf. Moscow will improve relations when and where it can… until it gains major influence in that state. The disturbing possibility is that the USSR is far more likely than the US to be first in finding opportunities to improve its ties to Iran.” Interestingly, in 1991, during Robert Gates’s Senate hearings on becoming the director of the CIA, it is learned that Fuller’s memo contradicts the views of career Soviet analysts at the agency, who believe that the Soviet Union has no real hope of making inroads into the Iranian regime. The USSR is the chief arms supplier for Iraq, Iran’s bitter enemy and current opponent in a long and bloody war. Iran is arming the Afghan mujaheddin, the Islamist resistance fighters viewed as a threat by Saddam Hussein. Several CIA analysts will later testify that they believe Fuller deliberately slanted his memo for political reasons. In 1992, Fuller himself will admit that he was wrong, but will deny any politicization. Regardless, Fuller’s memo becomes a critical document shaping the Reagan policy to arm Iran. It is not clear whether Vice President Bush ever saw the memo, but whether he did or not, beginning in 1985 he takes part in numerous White House meetings where the arming of Iran is discussed. If he has objections to the policy, he never voices them. [Time, 11/17/1986; New Yorker, 11/2/1992] Lewis Tambs becomes the US Ambassador to Costa Rica. Tambs is under orders to open what is called a “southern front” for the Nicaraguan Contras; a small force of Contras is striking into southern Nicaragua from northern Costa Rica, and the Costa Rican government wants them out of their territory. Tambs believes that the orders for the “southern front” come from National Security Council (NSC) officer Oliver North, Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, and their Restricted Interagency Group (RIG—see Late 1985 and After). Tambs, with the assistance of North’s liaison in Central America, Felix Rodriguez , secures permission from the Costa Rican government to build an airstrip for use by the Contras in northern Costa Rica, as long as it is not close enough to the border to allow the Contras to use it as a staging area for ground raids. One of Abrams’s first questions to North after being tasked to “monitor” the NSC officer is why the Costa Ricans are allowing the airstrip. The airstrip will be built at Santa Elena, Costa Rica, by the Udall Corporation, one of the private firms controlled by North’s partner, retired General Richard Secord , and will be called “Point West.” Abrams will later testify, falsely, that no US officials were involved in securing permission to build the airstrip. Notes taken by the US Ambassador to El Salvador, Edwin Corr, about discussions concerning the airstrip, will prove that Abrams lies under oath about the airstrip. [Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters: Chapter 25: United States v. Elliott Abrams: November 1986, 8/4/1993] Secretary of State George Shultz writes to National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane that “Israel’s record of dealings with Iran since the fall of the Shah and during the hostage crisis [shows] that Israel’s agenda is not the same as ours.” Referring to the plan concocted by NSC staffer Oliver North and North’s consultant, neoconservative and likely Israeli spy Michael Ledeen , to seek Israeli help in freeing the American hostages in Lebanon , Shultz writes, “Consequently doubt whether an intelligence relationship such as what Ledeen has in mind would be one which we could fully rely upon and it could seriously skew our own perception and analysis of the Iranian scene.” [CounterPunch, 2/28/2004] David Kimche, the director general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, meets secretly with National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane to advise him that Israel may be able to use its influence with Iran to engineer the release of American hostages currently held by Hezbollah. Kimche’s outreach is the final piece in the complex arms-for-hostage deal between the US, Israel, and Iran. [New Yorker, 11/2/1992] Israel is a logical conduit for arms to Iran, as it has been selling arms to Iran periodically since 1979, originally as part of its efforts to get Iran to allow Iranian Jews to emigrate to Israel. Like the US, Israel hopes to gain influence with Iranian moderates who will presumably take power after the aged, ailing Islamist radical Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini dies. (Earlier attempts to sell US-made arms to Iran had been blocked by the Carter administration.) According to Israeli sources, this Israeli offer began with a group of Israeli businessmen informing Prime Minister Shimon Peres in early July that they had been in contact with Iranian officials, and thought they could facilitate an arrangement to swap US arms for American hostages. The Israelis say that the US point man for the deal is John Poindexter, the deputy national security adviser, and Poindexter tapped National Security Council aide Oliver North to be the US liaison to Israel. Peres quickly authorized the Israeli businessmen to resume their contacts with the Iranians, and the businessmen contacted Saudi arms merchant Adnan Khashoggi. Khashoggi obtained a long list of desired military equipment from the Iranians, including Hawk antiaircraft missiles and radar-guidance equipment for them, antitank missiles, and spare parts for jet fighters. [Time, 11/17/1986] While Ronald Reagan publicly compares Iran’s government to “Murder, Incorporated” (see July 8, 1985), he privately authorizes his National Security Adviser, Robert McFarlane, to make contact with Iran. [New York Times, 11/19/1987] Recovering from cancer surgery, President Reagan authorizes National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane’s plan to open a dialogue with Iran through the auspices of Iranian gunrunner Manucher Ghorbanifar. McFarlane believes the US can win influence with Iranian moderates by helping Iran in its war with Iraq. Reagan believes the thaw in relations may help win the release of US hostages being held in Lebanon by Iranian-backed terrorists. [PBS, 2000] Israeli representatives meet with Iranian arms merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar for the first time, to discuss brokering the secret US-Iranian arms deals authorized by President Reagan. Israel will sell arms to Iran, and the US will replenish Israeli stockpiles. [PBS, 2000] Israel sends 96 TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran. [New York Times, 11/19/1987] No American hostages are freed in return. [PBS, 2000] Former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, an emissary of the Reagan administration, takes 23 tons of weapons to Iran. [PBS, 2000] Newly ensconsced Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams meets with Secretary of State George Shultz, Shultz’s executive assistant Charles Hill, and Shultz’s executive secretary Nicholas Platt. In this meeting, Abrams learns that National Security Council official Oliver North is conducting covert actions to support the Nicaraguan Contras . According to Abrams’s notes from the meeting, Shultz tasks him to “monitor Ollie.” Abrams will later testify to the Iran-Contra investigative committee about this meeting, saying that he asks, “All these accusations about Colonel North, you want me to try to find out whether they are true and what he is up to, or do you want me to sort of leave?” Shultz replies, “No, you have got to know.” During the meeting, Abrams notes that Shultz does not want White House officials to know too much about North’s activities in funding the Contras. Abrams notes that Shultz says to him: “We don’t want to be in the dark. You [are] suppose[d] to be mgr [manager] of overall CA [Central America] picture. Contras are integral part of it. So y[ou] need to know how they [are] getting arms. So don’t just say go see the WH [White House]. It’s very risky for WH.” Platt, too, takes notes of the meeting. According to his notes, Shultz says: “What is happening on other support for Contras for lethal aid etc.—E. Abrams doesn’t have the answer. Stayed away let Ollie North do it. Fundraising continuing—weapons stocks are high. We have had nothing to do with private aid. Should we continue? Hate to be in position, [Shultz] says, of not knowing what’s going on. You are supposed to be managing overall Central American picture. Ollie can go on doing his thing, but you, [Abrams], should know what’s happening.” The notes from Abrams and Platt, and Abrams’s own testimony all confirm that Abrams is aware of North’s activities by September 1985, though he will subsequently lie to Congress about possessing such knowledge . Abrams will later testifz that he has a very good idea about North’s activities from working with North in an interagency group . [Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters: Chapter 25: United States v. Elliott Abrams: November 1986, 8/4/1993] The first arms-for-hostage deal between Iran and the US is completed (see August 6, 1985). On August 30, Israel sold over 500 US-made TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran. Now Iran frees the Reverend Benjamin Weir, an American kidnapped over a year before in Lebanon. White House officials hope for further hostage releases, but none are forthcoming. [New Yorker, 11/2/1992] Ronald Reagan will telephone Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres to thank him for Israel’s help in securing Weir’s freedom. The TOW missiles will be delivered to Iran on September 20, in the cargo hold of a DC-8 transport plane once owned by a Miami-based air transport company; the aircraft took off from Tabriz, Iran, disappeared from radar screens over Turkey, made what was supposed to be a “forced landing” in Israel and later returned to Iran by a circuitous route. [Time, 11/17/1986] The US ships another 500 TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran via Israel. [PBS, 2000] Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, a mid-level National Security Council staff member, is put in charge of the upcoming shipment of US Hawk anti-aircraft missiles to Iran (see November 24-25, 1985). [PBS, 2000] The CIA arranges for the shipment of 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles from Israel to Iran, ferried aboard a CIA front company transport plane. Within days, the Iranians reject the missiles because they do not meet their requirements. Some of the US officials involved in the missile transfer later claim they believe the CIA plane carried oil-drilling parts, and not weapons. After the transfer, John McMahon, the deputy director of the CIA, says that the agency can no longer provide covert assistance to Iran without explicit authorization from President Reagan. [New York Times, 11/19/1987] Reagan will authorize the sale of the missiles a month later. President Reagan issues a secret presidential finding that retroactively authorizes the sale of Hawk missiles to Iran, a sale that took place a month before. When Attorney General Edwin Meese conducts his November 1986 “investigation” of the Iran arms sales, the documentation of that finding will be destroyed. Congress will not be told of the Hawk sales, as mandated by law. [New York Times, 11/19/1987; Dubose and Bernstein, 2006, pp. 66] Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who has opposed the arms-for-hostage deal with Iran from the outset, warns President Reagan that the arms transfers are patently illegal under the Arms Export Control Act (see 1981). Weinberger later says, “There was no way in which this kind of transfer could be made if that particular act governed.” According to Secretary of State George Shultz, who is also present, Reagan answers, “Well, the American people would never forgive me if I failed to get these hostages out over this legal question.” [New Yorker, 11/2/1992] President Reagan, Secretary of State George Shultz, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, outgoing National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, and McFarlane’s replacement, John Poindexter, all meet at the White House to discuss the government’s arms sales to Iran. Later statements by the participants conflict on key details. Some will say that a consensus is reached to end arms sales to Iran, but Deputy CIA Director John McMahon will recall that no such consensus is reached. [New York Times, 11/19/1987] Outgoing National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane and National Security Council staffer Oliver North fly to London to meet with Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms merchant. Also present at the meeting are David Kimche, of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, and Israeli arms dealer Yaacov Nimrodi. McFarlane tells Ghorbanifar that the US wants to end arms sales to Iran, though the US wants to continue pursuing diplomatic relations. [New York Times, 11/19/1987] The US will in actuality continue selling arms to Iran. Future 9/11 Commission vice chairman Lee Hamilton (D-IN), at this time chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, fails to properly investigate Iran-Contra allegations. He learns of press reports indicating that the Reagan administration is illegally funneling weapons and money to the anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua, but when the White House denies the story, Hamilton believes it. Hamilton will later acknowledge that he has been gullible, and will say of his political style, “I don’t go for the jugular.” It is during the Iran-Contra investigation that Hamilton becomes friends with Dick Cheney, at this time a Republican congressman. [Shenon, 2008, pp. 33] Cheney is the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee and so must work closely with Hamilton, including on the Iran-Contra investigation. [PBS, 6/20/2006] Hamilton calls Cheney “Dick” and they will remain friends even after Cheney becomes vice president in 2001 and Hamilton, as vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, begins to investigate Cheney’s actions as a part of the Commission’s work. [Shenon, 2008, pp. 33] Hamilton will also fail to properly investigate “October Surprise” allegations. Months before the National Security Council (NSC)‘s Oliver North sets up his network to illegally divert funds from Iranian arms sales to the Nicaraguan Contras ,the NSC uses the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI—see July 22, 1991) to channel money to the Contras. This money is sent from White House-controlled funds to Saudi Arabia to “launder” its origins, then deposited into a BCCI bank account controlled by Contra leader Adolfo Calero. [Time, 7/22/1991] Attorney General Edwin Meese becomes directly involved in the Reagan administration’s secret plan to sell arms to Iran, when he is asked to render a legal opinion supporting the plan. [United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 8/4/1993] Months later, Meese will conduct an “investigation” of the Iran-Contra affair , a possible conflict of interest in light of his legal opinion to justify the arms sales. In a meeting between President Ronald Reagan, Vice President George Bush, Secretary of State George Shultz, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, CIA Director William Casey, and new National Security Adviser John Poindexter, the participants discuss whether to sell 4,000 Israeli-owned, US-made antitank missiles to Iran as another arms-for-hostages deal. Shultz and Weinberger, as they have before, oppose any dealings with Iran. Bush, according to records of the meeting, fails to express any views at all, but Shultz will recall Bush supporting the deal. In 1988, Bush will tell a reporter that he doesn’t remember any such conflict over the arms sales, saying, “I never really heard them that clearly. And the reason is that the machinery broke down—it never worked as it should. The key players with the experience weren’t ever called together… to review the decisions that were made at a lower level.” It is hard to imagine any higher levels of the executive branch of government than what is represented in this meeting. In 1987, Bush will tell the Tower Commission investigating the deal that he didn’t know enough about the arms-for-hostages deals to be able to express an informed opinion about the decision to make the deals, and doesn’t remember the meeting as a “showdown session,” testimony contradicted by both Weinberger and Shultz in their own statements to the commission. [New Yorker, 11/2/1992] National Security Council officer Oliver North, running the secret and illegal network that diverts funds from US-Iranian arms sales to the Nicaraguan Contras , has a phone conversation with CIA official Alan Fiers. A diary entry by North documenting the conversation reads in part, “Felix talking too much about V.P. connection.” “Felix” is CIA agent Felix Rodriguez, a key member of North’s network . It is not clear whether the “V.P.” notation refers to Vice President George H. W. Bush or to former CIA official Donald Gregg, now Bush’s foreign policy adviser and a liaison to Rodriguez. In later testimony before the Iran-Contra Congressional committee , Gregg will deny that Bush’s office was involved in recruiting Rodriguez to work with North. [Time, 7/22/1991] Gregg has a long and clandestine relationship with Rodriguez, going back as far as 1959, when the two were involved in “Operation 40,” a CIA-led attempt to overthrow Cuba’s Fidel Castro. [Spartacus Schoolnet, 2/3/2008] Gregg also worked with Rodriguez in covert operations during the Vietnam War. [Spartacus Schoolnet, 12/28/2007] During a morning intelligence briefing, President Ronald Reagan signs the authorization for the US to allow Israel to sell Iran 4,000 US-made antitank missiles . As they have consistently done before, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz register their opposition to the arms deals with Iran. National Security Adviser John Poindexter notes in a February 1986 e-mail that Vice President George Bush supports the arms-for-hostages deals with Iran, writing that the “President and VP are solid in taking the position that we have to try.” The reasons the various administration officials have for agreeing to sell arms to Iran are complex. Reagan is motivated by his belief that supporting Iran thwarts Soviet plans for Middle East domination ,and by his own personal sorrow over the plight of the hostages. Others have more overtly political motives primarily fueled by the upcoming midterm elections. If, as in 1980, the American hostages currently held by Islamist radicals can be freed before the elections, the Republicans would likely reap the political benefits. Iranian-born arms merchant Albert Hakim, who is involved in the arms deals, will later tell Congress’s Iran-Contra committee, “We had to meet a deadline in releasing hostages, because the elections were coming up.” Even National Security Council aide Oliver North, one of the chief facilitators of the deals with Iran, will admit to the committee, “There are political concerns.” The US insists that before it deliver any of the antitank missiles, all of the hostages must be released. Iran refuses, and a deadlock ensues that will last for months. [New Yorker, 11/2/1992] Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, the National Security Council staffer who facilitates the secret Iran arms deals, helps divert $12 million in money from those arms sales to the Nicaraguan Contras. The deal is documented in a memorandum located in North’s desk by investigators for Attorney General Edwin Meese . Meese will inform President Reagan and top White House officials of the memo, but many of the cabinet members and top officials he will inform already know of the transaction. [United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 8/4/1993] National Security Adviser John Poindexter, the recipient of the memo, will later testify that President Reagan never saw the memo. Reagan will deny knowing anything about the diversion of arms profits to the Contras until November 1986. [New York Times, 11/19/1987] A delegation secretly sent to Iran by the White House to break the arms-for-hostages deadlock (see November 3, 1986) returns to Iran. The two countries have been at an impasse since January, when President Reagan authorized the sale of 4,000 antitank missiles to Iran but US officials insisted that all of the American hostages held by Hezbollah be freed before the missiles would be delivered, a condition the Iranians have refused . The US delegation—actually the third such delegation to secretly visit Tehran—includes former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane; McFarlane’s longtime supporter and current National Security Council member Oliver North; CIA expert George Cave; and North’s NSC colleague, Howard Teicher. Israel, which will facilitate the arms transfer, sends Amiram Nir, a counterterrorism adviser to Prime Minister Shimon Peres. [Time, 11/17/1986; New Yorker, 11/2/1992] McFarlane and North bring with them more spare parts for Iran’s Hawk anti-aircraft missiles. They attempt, and fail, to persuade the Iranians to facilitate the release of all American hostages. [New York Times, 11/19/1987] The delegation’s mission has borne no fruit, as the Iranians insisted on “sequencing,” or releasing the hostages two at a time as arms shipments were delivered. Part of the problem surrounds the Iranians’ belief that they are being charged outrageous prices for the missiles, a perception given credence by the fact that profits from the weapons sales are being used to fund Nicaragua’s Contra rebel movement. [Time, 11/17/1986; New Yorker, 11/2/1992] Unusual Negotiation Tactics - Part of the negotiations involves North, the NSC staffer who coordinates the administration’s dealings with the Contras, offering the Iranians a Bible signed by President Reagan and a chocolate cake. In response, the Iranians stall. Hezbollah will release a few US hostages and take others hostage, maintaining the status quo. [Dubose and Bernstein, 2006, pp. 65] Explicit Briefing of President, Vice President - McFarlane later briefs both Reagan and Vice President Bush on the arms-for-hostage negotiations (see May 29, 1986). Alan Fiers, the head of the CIA’s Central America task force, learns of the Reagan administration’s illegal diversion of funds from the sale of weapons to Iran to the Nicaraguan Contras . Fiers informs his superior, Deputy Director of Operations Clair George. Instead of acting on the knowledge, George orders Fiers to conceal his knowledge of the diversions. George will order Fiers to lie to Congress about it in November 1986. Fiers will later plead guilty to lying to Congress (see July 17, 1991). [Time, 7/22/1991] "UNQUOTE"
from Naeem-ud-din Khalid
cc Sultan Shahin <Editor@NewAgeIslam.com>
date 15 February 2009 10:56
subject Re: [Ethad-e-Islami] Iran
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO SAY!
FOR THEM KITAAB MIN DOON ALLAH IS NOTHING BUT MIS-GUIDANCE, WHICH IS HABAL-UN-NAAS,
WHICH DOES SATIA NAAS!
--- On Sat, 2/14/09, Muhammad Shafi <> wrote:
From: Muhammad Shafi
Subject: Re: [Ethad-e-Islami] Iran
Date: Saturday, February 14, 2009, 1:24 PM
--- On Thu, 22/1/09, shoaib rehman <shoaib_leokhan@ yahoo.com> wrote:
From: shoaib rehman <shoaib_leokhan@ yahoo.com>
To: Ethad-e-Islami@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 22 January, 2009, 4:39 PM
Dear Mr. Faiz.
All sections of Muslims believe that Imam Mehdi will come near Last Day. I think that you are from Firqa Qadyani who do not believe that Imam Mehdi will come, but in their opinions Imam Mehdi has come in the shape of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed.
If you are not Qadyani, then you must read Hadith Books, you will certainly find the fact.
Faiz <tahirakhan@comcast. net> wrote:
Who is this guy....Imam Mehdi?
I hear about him a lot. In fact, both Sunnis and Shias believe in him. In fact, all Shi'as and Sunnis--the so-called "Muslims" are waiting for some "Imam Mehdi" known by many fancy names "imam Zaman", Imam Qaim".. Wao--someone really, really special! So if he is "that" special, I would hope that the Qur'an would specifically mention him by name--not once but multiple times. Does it?
O' the Nation of the Blind-followers of the Man-made Religion, answer my question: "Does the Book of Allah mention any "Mehdi"--either by name or even by implication?
I am waiting..... Not for "Mehdi"...but to hear from you.
From: Mansoor Hallaj
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:37 AM
--- On Sat, 1/17/09, Ahsan Siddiqui <ahsanglobal@ yahoo.com> wrote:
Where it's stated that Kana Dajjal is equal to Hazrat Mehdi A.S, as stated by you...?
Dear Ahsan Sahab,
I didn't state anything which you are trying to attribute to me in your above statement. Read the message of Mr Syed which is mentioned below because it was him who compared Mahdi of Shia with the Anti Christ [Kana Dajjal] not me. Before raising finger you must read carefully. Read all the messages bleow.
From: Mansoor Hallaj
Dear Ms Ayesha,
You should read carefully as to what is written in its original message [given in the end of my message], wherein a Hadith from Sahih Muslim is quoted then in the next paragraph the author has condemned the Shia Community and almost equated them with the Jews [it is indirect Takfeer - declaring Apostate].
In one of your posts you have condemned several elists which as per you created by the proverbial Zionist and Hindu lobbies to create dissent amongst Muslims and what about the message above by Syed??? Mr Syed has condemned Shia Community without any proper reference of their books. I wonder if Mr Syed want Sectarian Strife in Pakistan and you are promoting that through your elist. You just dont pass a sweeping comment against an entire community. Mr Syed should have provided References from Shia books before passing a judgement against entire community. By the way what happened to the so-called Jubilations over the so-called Victory of Hizbullah of Lebanon and Victorious Chanting Rallies outside Press Club Karachi in favour of Hasan Nasrullah and what about those rhetoric from Pakistani Religious Class of declaring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a Ray of Hope for Muslim Ummah??? Last but not the least if you condemn Shia Community of Iran as the would be followers
of Anti-Christ [Kana Dajjal] then please and please again do condemn Mawlana Abu Ala Mawdudi and Jamat-e-Islami Literature becasue Irani Mullah Khomeini had included Mawdudi and Jamat-e-Islami Literature in Irani Syllabus Qom University Iran.
On Thu, 1/15/09, Syed <orientengpk@ yahoo.com> wrote:
The prophet (SAW) said in Sahih Muslim:Book 41. Turmoil And Portents Of The Last Hour Hadith 7034. (Sahih Muslim)
Anas b. Malik reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: The Dajjal would be followed by seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan wearing Persian shawls. You can now realise why they do not leave Iran to Palestine .. Especially Isfahan .. They want to be 'honoured' to follow their leader al-Dajjaal.. And Shia, if you read their books, you will find that the descriptions of their Al-Mahdi are the same EXACTLY as the descriptions of Al-Dajaal (before he loses his eye)..
--- On Thu, 1/15/09, Ayesha Hassan Afzal <ayesha.hafzal@ yahoo.com> wrote:
The video is quite interesting to watch, if early approval of email about Iran hurt you then I am not going to apologize because it was done inadvertently ----> The subject, material & pictures were aiming to expose something and hence I approved it.
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:44:50 -0800 [02:14:50 PM IST]
From: Ijteba Ulhasnain <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Sultan Shahin <Editor@NewAgeIslam.com>
Subject: Zionist Rulers of Saudi Arabia
Impartiality is a principle of <justice holding that decisions should be based on <objective criteria, rather than on the basis of <bias, <prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons. (wiki)
Your source of info is already biased and you still talk of impartiality, this is how some one can defend all types of massacre of Israel through
I can provide thousands of such links, so shall we accept that all this info is correct?
hopefully you will understand the difference between "informed" and "aware" a register and a brain.
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 2:11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [HasanShabbir:7970] Re: Zionist Rulers of Saudi Arabia
--- On Sun, 2/15/09, Ijteba Ulhasnain <<email@example.com> wrote:
Well the Iraqi aggression controlled by America and Brittan was an assault on Iran, not by Iran at a time when they were facing every kind of sanctions and no one was ready to help. So they might have bought arms from the black market from agents like Adnan Khashogi a close-knit of King Abdul Aziz. This is an out-and-out lie that aytullahs used to get funding from Israel and America, I was not expecting from a resourceful person like you.
Dear Ijteba Sahab,
The other person whom you forgot to mention is Manucher Ghorbanifar [an expatriate Iranian arms dealer] who was a middle man between Khomeini-CIA-Mossad during American Hostage Affair and then in Iran Contra Scandal [Khomeini's representatives used to deal with the US Republican Party and US Military Establishment in New York, USA]
I am posting US Declassified Government Document and then read US Congress Investigation [Tower Commission Report] on these Murky Affairs of Khomeini and other Aytaullah's dealing with US CIA [same as Afghan Mullahs of Taliban and Afghna Mujahideen]. I will be impartial in my analysis rather providing details... Read and enjoy.
Go through the youtube audio and transcript below to learn as to how These Zbigniew Brzezinski [Former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, who is now a backbone on Foreign Poilcy for Obama - The President of the USA] helped Afghan Mullahs and Ayatullah Khomeini for "Cause of Islam". Khomeini [a brother of Mawdudi - The Founder of Jamat-e-Islami] was helped by the US CIA during IRAN-IRAQ WAR [READ THE US CONGRESS PROCEEDINGS ON IRAN CONTRA AFFAIRS] AND ALSO VISIT US NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/[ The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm
[DECLASSIFIED US GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT ON THIS WHOLE OPERATION OF US Central Intelligence <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB40/
Barack Obama, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Al Qaeda
KHOMEINI-US AXIS. [Read the details in the link below]
The October surprise
Arms for hostages
Reagan's and bush's involvement
The aftermath of Iran-contra
The Iran-Contra scandal can be traced to the October Surprise during the 1980 Presidential election between incumbent Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. In the fall of 1980, Carter was marginally leading Reagan in the polls with the election right around the corner. The release of hostages before Election Day presumably would have insured the election for Carter. The Reagan team conspired to negotiate a deal with Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. Campaign manager William Casey and George Bush met with Iranian Prime Minister Bani-sadr in Paris in October, only weeks before the election and with Carter having a slight lead over Reagan. Part of the deal cut between the Reagan team and Iran was to provide military weapons which Iran desperately needed in its war with Iraq. As it turned out, the 52 American hostages remained captive in Teheran. Carter's popularity continued to plummet, enabling Reagan to be elected in November, and ironically the hostages were
returned at 12 o'clock noon on January 21, 1981 when Reagan was inaugurated.
The first meeting regarding arms-to-Iran occurred in July 1980 in Barcelona, Spain and not in Madrid as was initially reported. The Republican team met at the Hotel Princess Sofia and at the Pepsico International headquarters. The American team was led by Republican campaign director William Casey, who months later was to be named CIA chief by Reagan, and by Robert McFarlane, who later became National Security adviser under Reagan. Three months after Barcelona, a more important meeting took place in Paris. CIA agent Richard Brenneke testified that Bush was in Paris on Sunday, October 19, 1980 when he met with members of the Khomeini regime to consummate an arms package to Iran. Bush, along with Casey and other government officials, flew to Paris on a BAC 111 on Saturday evening, October 18. The plane arrived in Paris on Sunday morning October 19 at 8:40 a.m. European time.
While in Paris, the Republican team gave $40 million to the Iranian government as a gesture of good faith that the Reagan team was serious in dealing with the terrorist Khomeini government -- and that the 52 American hostages should remain captive until after the November election. After the meeting, Bush had to quickly return to the United States in order to deliver a speech at the Washington Hilton Hotel. He departed France in an SR-71 reconnaissance plane, piloted by Gunther Russbacher. The plane was refueled by an Air Force tanker nearly 2,000 miles out of Paris. The entire return flight to the United States was less than two hours.
When news of the Paris meeting leaked out, the CIA moved quickly to cover-up Bush's meeting. CIA agent Frank Snepp wrote an article in the Village Voice, stating that the SR-71 pilot, Gunther Russbacher, was not capable of flying an SR-71 and, therefore, his allegations were false. However, in an interview between government whistle-blower Rodney Stich and Russbacher, it was very clear that Russbacher had been trained in flying the SR-71.
Several other witnesses corroborated the story that Bush was present in Paris. Ari Ben-Menashea, a member of Israel's Mossad and involved in the transfer of arms to Iran, stated that Bush was at the meeting. Also, Iranian Prime Minister Bani-sadr produced documents indicating that Bush was present. On the other hand, CIA agent Donald Gregg, who was on the flight to Paris, failed a polygraph test when asked about Bush's presence.
The Secret Service unequivocally denied the fact that Bush was in Paris. Yet, the agency refused to allow any of its agents who were assigned to Bush at that time, to testify. Justice Department prosecutors called two Secret Service agents who swore that Bush was in Washington, D.C. on that weekend. The Secret Service claimed that Bush was in Pennsylvania on Saturday, October 18; however, the agency did not produce any evidence to indicate Bush's activities on the following day.
Under pressure by the Republicans, both the House and the Senate initially refused to investigate the October Surprise. However, eventually in 1991, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made a token gesture and superficially did look into allegations of improprieties. The investigation was virtually blocked, since the committee prevented investigators from travelling to Europe to interview witnesses; denied subpoena power to investigators; limited the time frame of the investigation; and limited the funds to investigate alleged illegalities.
2/10/2009 11:14:25 PM
Mrs. Sayyeda Kaneez
If this lady Kaneez has any guts, I suggest her and her progeny to pick up a fight with MA Khan
( Jamsheed Basha)
The senile Jamshed basha ( an established thief of write-ups )
This site is writ large with what I am and what you are, I am a daughter of Islam and Alhamdo lillah! A Sayyed, In your case it has been long established that you are a JULAHA and a concocter and now a thief too, My guts are the same that has been proved 1400 years ago in the events of ‘Karbala’ the same event proved the filthy origin of your ancestors.
You are an abusive street side joke Mr. Jamshed Basha, or you wouldn’t have asked a Lady to fight and show guts. Shame on you!!!
Mr. Jamsheed Basha,
On resurfacing from your hiding you have again raised the same old baseless allegations which have been answered several times in the past on this website. There is one and only one Quran. Have you ever seen a Shia Quran with 40 paras? Instead of bringing in Iran and Khomeini where again your knowledge is mediocre, have the decency to respond to my earlier comment here under where I have quoted two Quranic verses which relate to the 12th Imam. Having raised the subject of the 12th Imam which you had been threatening the Shias with for months, you yourself seem to be running away from it. While the article may have been lifted from another website, the idea of bringing it up is surely yours. And it needs your defence.
SHIA'S BELIEF ON QURAN AS PER THEIR AUTHENTIC BOOKS:
Shiites believe that there was a scripture revealed after the Quran before the death of the Prophet, which they call the ‘Tablet of Fatimah’. They claim, that in it were the names of all those who were to be their Imams in the future [Al-Kulaini, Al-Kaafi, 1/527-8]
Important Note: Usool al- Kafi that is a collection narrations and traditions attributed to the Shiite Imams, Ahlul Bayt and the Prophet. Al-Kafi is the MOST reliable Shia Book, as the reliable Shia Scholars said and declared . Its author is Thiqat al-Islam Muhamad Ibn Yaqoob AlKulayni (A VERY reliable Shia Scholar, died in 328 H). Shi'ites scholars believe usool Al-Kafi was presented to the legendary Imam Qaem who liked it and said: "It suffices our Shi'ites" (al-Tharee'ah ela Tasaneef al-Shi'a: Agha Buzurg al-Tahraani; vol.17, p.245)
Shia directly challenge the authenticity of the Quran by stating that its has not been preserved, and that the Quran today is incomplete, and that the complete version is with their 12th Imam who has been in hiding for the past 900 years in ‘the cave’. They believe that when he emerges he will bring forth the complete version. [Usul Kafi 1:228, Al-Anwar al-Nu’maniah, 2: 360-2] (Aamir Mughal)
Now it is upto people to decide whether those who do not believe in the present Quran, can they be called Muslims? And claim that their 12th Imam Mehdi, hiding in a cave, but communicating with his representative, who collect money in his name, would bring back the original Quran from his hiding, nobody knows when, but these misguided Shiites called it before the doomsday. But to ordinary sense and logic, what is the use of a Quran which can be seen only at the end of the world? Allah had sent Quran for guidance of the mankind. If what Shittes claimed to be a real Quran, then was it not meant for guidance of mankind or atleast this Shiite community.? The Shiites also claim that if you leave a letter of request at the entrance of 'Babul Gayab", Mehdi who is in hiding there will pick up and answer all your queries, but through his collection agent, 'representative'. Why then he is not sending the Original Quran through his 'representative' if he is actually alive there for near 900 years holding tightly that Original Quran? What kind of belief it is, which does not appeal to one's sense or logic? What is then the difference between such a belief and that of other beliefs in other religious groups. Are they Muslims as they claim to be? Some idiotic argument is going on that they are the true followers of Ahlul Bayat. If they are, then they should believe in the Holy Quran, as a complete book of Allah as revealed to our Prophet Mohammed PBUH, compiled by Ashabe Rasool, read and memorized by Hazrat Ali, Hassan, and Hussein RA, themselves. Neither Ali nor Hussein in their life time ever claimed that they were the Imams or the present Quran was corrupt etc., as claimed by Shiite. Hazart Ali, Hassan and Hussein RAA, offered prayers exactly in the way our Prophet Mohammed PBUH taught them and not the kind of prayer offered today by Khomeni followers, who was a hypocrite, lived his life and died after causing damage to the nation and its people. Till today, these people in Iran are still suffering and one can see as if they are living in seventh century AD.
My post on Khomeni and some of the facts narrated therein were never countered by any one so far. No body has the guts to refute the facts of history and immense damage done to the religion of Islam, by the hypocrite of Islam, Khomeni. He is best forgotten in his own country. Then why should we debate on such a person, who did no good to the cause of Islam, but damage. One howling woman like Syeeda Kaneez, and her battameez followers, were seen indulging in mudslinging on Sultan Shaheen and others who did not toe their line of thinking. To them except Shiites no one were Muslims. When they quote verses from Quran, it looked like the "Devil quoting the scriptures". Love of Ahlul Bayat means respecting the followers of Prophet Mohammed PBUH i.e., all Muslims. These 10% or less minority group, trying to dominate the 90% Sunni Muslims, concentrated in Iran and some parts of Iraq, and as a miniscule minority in India and Pakistan. Elsewhere in the world they are just insignificant in numbers of a diaspora population. They are shouting and crying to make their presence felt. The kind of venom they are spitting on every person here, the kind of insult they heap on the great Sahabis, all speak of their ill breeding. They are as a matter of fact insulting their own Siite Religion. Like there are good Talibans among the Taliban resistanace group, there are good Shiites also, who do not believe in 'Tabarrah;. These moderate voices among the Shiites are suppressed by the majority ignorant, Jahil and third rated people forming the shiite community coming from very low background. These groups form the majority among the minority Shiite community. Otherwise, a miniscule minority among the shiites form the moderate groups. They oppose to such Tehrik of Quran, Tabarrah, and other medieval practices like beating the chest, conducting majlises to condemn Khulfae Rashdeen, and other Ashabe Rasool, denigrating other Ummul Momineen etc. They never raised the status of Ali to one of God, as the normal shiites do. They just treat him as the son in law of Prophet Mohammed PBUH and Hazrat Hassan and Hussein RAA, as their sons and beloved grandsons of our Prophet Mohammed PBUH. They also believe that Hazrat Hassan and Hussain RAA, used to visit Hazrat Mauwaiyaah RA, in damascus regularly and obtain gifts and handsome pension regularly every year. Can any one deny these facts of history?
I now call upon the street fighters and market maids on this site who lack basic decency and civility as expected of educated class of people, to debate, discuss and refute all the allegations with facts of history without taking it personally or indulging in insinuation against individual greats like Amir Mughal and Sultan Shahin.
People of Iran are sufferings from the atrocities of 'Shiite Talibans' and soon a second revolution of moderates would liberate the people of Iran. Then only that nation would prosper. US should identify the moderates in Iran and talk to them and encourage them to revolt against the opperessive regime of Iran, which is busy in suppressing the basic rights of the people. Do no allow them to manufacture Nuclear bomb as such weapons in the hands of irresponsible rulers of a rouge nation, would endanger the lives of millions of people all over the world.
Now people can decide what relevance the my of "Hidden Imam" in today's world has and how it would serve the cause of Islam. As Sultan Shahin rightly said, our Prophet Mohammed never believed in cheap miracles, except, at the command of Allah like "Shakkhul Qamar". The greatest miracle, our Prophet Mohammed PBUH, left us was the Holy Quran, which these Shiite denied to be a real Book of Allah. They ruthlessly allege that it was corrupted and made some wild and imaginary allegations of concoction against our great Ashabe Rasool PBUH. Such people inshallah would meet the fate of Abu Lahab as described in my earlier post.
MUJTAHIDS FATWAS AGAINST SAYINGS OF INFALLIBLES AS
AYATOLLAH ABUL QASIM AL KHOI
456 (iii) Having sexual intercourse with a woman; it is unlawful for man as well as for woman even though the penis may enter the vagina up to the point of circumcision only and semen may also not be discharged. In fact the obligatory precaution is that the male organ should not be inserted into even to an extent lesser than the point of circumcision. Further more, sexual intercourse in the anal of a woman is also unlawful on the basis of obligatory precaution whether the woman is haiz or not.
Dear and Respected Ms Sayyeda,
Would you care to define this latest Shia Sect?
Evidence of Tehreef (Alterations) in Quran
Wain kuntum fee raybin mimma nazzalna AAala AAabdina fatoo bisooratin min mithlihi wadAAoo shuhadaakum min dooni Allahi in kuntum sadiqeen
2:23 And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true
Tafseer:-In the Book Kaafi it has been narrated to Imam Mohammad Baqir AS that he said that this verse has been revealed in this way on to the Prophet Mohammad SW by the Angel Gibrael,
Wain kuntum fee raybin mimma nazzalna AAala AAabdina fi Ali ibne Abitalib fatoo bisooratin min mithlihi wadAAoo shuhadaakum min dooni Allahi in kuntum sadiqeen
And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant in the context of Ali ibne Abitalib, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.
Shia Imamia ithna ashari
Allama Iqbal said in Jawab-e-shikwa...Tum Syed bhi ho, Mirza bhi ho, Afghan bhi ho : Tum sabhi kuch ho batao k musalman bhi ho .I will suggest all to watch these two videos its good for our awareness and to learn lesson from them. (Omar Hayat Khan) [ AMIR MOGHUL]
'Tum Amir Moghul Bhi ho, Jamshed Basha Bhi ho, Chor bhi ho, Be-Iman bhi ho, Kahne ko to Musallmaan bhi ho,
Per Ye to Bataao, Kya INSAAN bhi ho'?
Ps: Dushmana-e-Ahlebait sirf Haiwaan ho sakte hain Insaan nahi!!!!
Mr. sarkar sir is true. deobandiyat and tablighi jamat both are terrorrorist groups. both are come from wahbiyat, actulay Ahmad Raza (Azimabad) named man from patana, is the first wahabi scholar, who is the actual bani o the deoband and Nadwa, Maulvi Ismail Dehlavi and his concoter are basically wahabi but all knows this factor if we will work like Abdul wahab, then indian sunni Muslim will denied and fight against all of us.like Egyptain muslim. Ahamd Raza and his Friend Ismail knows this fact, so he made to say sunni and hanafi, and religion of abdul wahab and tamiyah wiil started india by sunni deobandi scholar, according to Mr sir Traveler Nadwa meaning is based own fact and also a house where meeting held for killing Muhammmad sallalahu alahi wassalam, with iblees layin. Allah save Musulim from socalled muslim
dear readers following is posted under DEBANDI debate.. i think this could be an intresting information, kindly forgive me for pasting this from the other debate ...
the reference- meaning and relevance of NADWA...
Found something intresting
While searching net for meaning of NADWA I came across few pages reading them made me understand that NADWA is strictly a PRE- ISLAMIC TERM used by Meccans . It was a townhall, assembly kind equivalent of modern times where NOBLES of Mecca would assemble to discuss their imortant issues. This original Nadwa was basically controlled by QURAISH ,the most powerful tribe of the Mecca then..naturally so called NOBLES of the quraish had maximum and usually the FINAL say in most matters... With this information it is not difficult to see AN ANGRY ABU- JAHAL cursing Prophet and his followers over the (new disesease affecting Meccans!)i.e. Islam, so called Kuffar-e-Mecca joining their heads and trying to figure out ways to Counter Prophet and his Islam............let your imagination work imagine one such important convention and see for yourself what comes to your understanding....
well this was PAST.. some 1400 years before , during the so called dark ages of Arabs, now coming to our times what disturbs me is what on earth prompted the SO CALLED ISLAMIC SCHOLORS of early 20 th century ( Maulana shibli nomani, Ashraf Ali Thanwi and likes of Maulana Mehmood-ul-Hasan to erect a seminary first in Kanpur then shifting this to Lucknow in North India . The foundation stone too was laid not by any islamic scholor or even a Muslim for that matter but by the then Governer General of India SIR JOHN BRISSCOT HEWITT..!! and the name given to the institution was DARUL ULOOM NADWATUL ULAMA ( the House of knowledge of Scholors of Nadwa)..
What an unbiassed mind can so clearly see is that the NADWA , THE INSTITUTION OF ABU- JAHAL AFTER 13 centuries turned in to HOUSE OF ISLAMIC SCHOLORS...
could this be just an example how ABU JAHAL and his cohorts overtook Islam over next few centuries?...
this was just a wild, stray thought on my part.....