Iran Politics Club
Website For Thinking Iranians
Back to index
Myth of Shiite Mahdi - Review on Imam Zaman
Myth of Shiite Mahdi - Review on Imam Zaman
Mayaazaar


Shiite Mahdi after reappearance!

A review on
The Myth of Shi'a (Shiite) Mahdi
by Abu Muhammad Al-Afriqi

C this:
The Myth of Shi'a (Shiite) Mahdi


Yes folks, this is about the emaam Zamaan the valiyeh asr, the
hidden Imam of KIRAN.

The Myth of the Shiit Mahdi.

Growing up in Iran, I knew a lot of pee-poles being called mehdi ,
but never Mahdi ; but after 78 some idiot Miranians called their sons Mahdi !

But that was only in the very early days, soon even many such fathers
escaped to Khaarej, thinking " cheh gohi khordim !" , but never dared to say
it aloud so others would hear it.

>
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?
>

Let's find out.

>
The cornerstone of the Shi'i faith is the belief that the spiritual and temporal
leadership of this Ummah after the demise of Rasulullah is vested in the Imam,
who is appointed, like the Nabi himself, by Allah, and who enjoys all the
distinctions and privileges of the Nabi .
>

This can only be pure MULLshit!
No, God, who decided to stop sending more Prophets, will NOT
send DIVINE Imams not only immediately, but at the same time of
the last Prophet! If Imams were divine, then Ali must've been
divine, so he must've been borne divine, like the rest of them.
But this can not be, coz when Ali was borne, the Prophet was not
chosen yet. So Y choose a Prophet when a DIVINE Imam lives?!

Same thing goes for Hasan/Hoseyn : God will not send divine Imams,
when the LAST Prophet was alive!

But this is not true, Imams r supposed to be more than Nabi!
The MULLshit says that the Imam's piss was shafaa/medicine!

>
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."
>

Now this is classic MULLshit of best kind: putting words in the mouth
of GOD! Surely if this were true, God would've said it in Qoran, no?!

But Miranians being trained by Mullahs to be brain-dead, never bothered
to ask questions, they just accepted MULLshit as holy! And if any dared
to question it, like Kasravi did, KK Mullahs would have him killed.

>
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.
>

Now remember folks, many people at that time were Christian/Jews, so the
concept of not-really-being-dead was well known then!

>
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.
>

Wow, as the torks would say 'pokh yedi Dynasty or days of our lives'!
Meaning Dynasty pales to insignificance compared to this soap opera!

Now remember folks, in them days there was no cameras, no tape recorders &
not many who could read or write, so the F*ing Mullahs were Kings & anything
they said was believed by their gaav/olaaq followers. V may well say : not much
has changed!

>
The death of Hasan al-Askari

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.
>

aay geryah kunid musalmunaa !
Don't worry, KK Mullahs will save the day!

>
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.
>

Wow, 20 sects!
They must have been very divided, almost like Miranians r today!

>
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.
>

And of course the SHIIT being totally anti-logic, never even bothered to ask
"Y didn't God say anything about all this in Qoran?"
"Y would God send holy Imams after the LAST Prophet? One after the other till the
end of time?!"
"Y would DIVINE Imams go to toilet & eat & have sex & die like other humans?"

>
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.
>

Now we can see the genius of KK Mullahs & their GREED!

>
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.
>

Well if pee-pole r so stupid to believe this shit, then y not take advantage of them?!

>
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).
>

Bravo!
Use Tohmat !
I'm sure he must've used a lot of Fohsh too!
He must've branded them as kaafar too (bi din) & taaquti !
K* Keshy of Mullahs goes way back!
I wonder what would they have done if TOHMAT was halaal in Islam?!

>
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.
>

Bravo again: the ultimate tool of K* Keshy: LIES & fabrication!
Same kind of things were said about Daughter of Persian King marrying Hoseyn!

>
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 still preserved 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.
>

astaq4ellah, all those who say bad things about him should be stoned!
(Well those who believed him must've been 'stoned' too (on drugs)!

>
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.
>

No shortage of gaav/olaaq pee-pole then neither!
SHIIT seems to thrive only with gaav/olaaq.

>
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.
>

Yes indeed 'Rivals'!
Have u seen how Mullahs look at each other: pure KINEH, with a cold grin!

>
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)."
>

Wow, an honest Mullah? Can't be, impossible!

>
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.
>

Too easy, anytime u want something, just issue fatvaa & the gaav/olaaq will follow.

>
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.
>

Gaav/olaaq don't look for academic/spiritual nature!
Even KK Khomeini didn't have much of it, so many asshole 'educated' Miranians
bent over for him in 78!

>
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.
>

Well v don't want to make the LIES too obvious, lest some of the gaav/olaaq
start questioning things, do we?!

But there is a limit to how much shit u can sweep under the carpet, eventually
the stink will make somebody lift the carpet & then the shit will hit the fan!

>
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.
>

Yes indeed!

>
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.
>

What MULLshit!
Who is the authority here GOD or some phony 'hidden' guy invented by some
crook? If GOD wanted Imams, he'd have mentioned them in Qoran!

>
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?
>

Wow! So much shit that even SHIIT leaders had to stop some if it!
This is shit going out of control!

>
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.
>

U mean the community of millions of gaav/olaaq, totally brain washed
by asshole Mullahs?!

>
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.
>

Millions of gaav/olaaq 'saw' the ugly ass of KK Khomeini on the moon,
so it must be true? No, this was pure MULLshit in the hands of gaav/olaaq!

>
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.
>

Amen!
This is what the filthy Mullahs proved in KIRAN beyond any doubt!
They r greedy power hungry zaalem binaamus bivojdaan qaatel animal criminals!

>
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 a hadith 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?
>

Yes, v may ask, but brain-dead pee-poles who follow Shiit can't answer.
And nothing a filthy mullah would say could be true!

>
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.
>

Bravo, 11 'persons' not holy DIVINE Imam, whose piss was shafaa!

>
In Islam, issues of faith can never be based upon evidence of this kind.
>

Yes indeed, GOD didn't give humans a BRAIN so that they could sit on it!


vaay vaay jish zadim ,
mollaaro aatish zadim!

* * *

 
IPC operating since March 30, 2000
eXTReMe Tracker
Duplication of contents are allowed, only by naming the source & link to IPC
All rights are protected & reserved by Iran Politics Club © 2000 IPC