Explanation To the Belief of Mahdism in Shia Imamia

36. Absence of Mahdi ====================

Under this title or leading the following may be said; A. the disappearance of the Imam was an event of most importance. Shias became upset and much disappointed they were uncertain as to what would happen politically, religiously and socially. It's far reaching effects in every as peek at every field was alarming. Some remained dumbs founded, perplexed and confused knowing not what to do.

A true Shia's concern was as to how to confront the adversary who was a staunch appetent, a Sunni, and how to protect his own strategy in that political hurricane; and to this added his worry as to how to guard an ordinary Shia whose belief was their hunt in which it was a moving object in the jungle that had engaged their arrows and could fell prey to the beast of their propaganda.

The safety of a common Shia, and the danger of the security of a learned Shia was the anxiety of the hour. Although they saw themselves exposed to an ambush from behind a tree in that society, which to them had turned into a forest ruled by wild and bestial animals, yet the most learned scholars of Shia were safe in their hidings.

They were armed by the Prophet's (SAW) traditions and the verses of the Holy Quran, which had established the truth of Imamate to rescue them and to guard a common Shia against the danger.

As a result we now see that Shiasm has survived every risk of eradication. It has preserved its originality rejecting any deviation. Whose make up is her original face and whose ornaments are her natural features.

Indeed, malice incited the ugly to abnubilate her beauty by any fuliginous way or to fash its admirers. But her admirers stood a grueling test and her own numinous beauty stood a palladium. However, no matter their practice the Shiasm deranged its entity. The learned ones gave refuge to the thought of the people. The NAWABS took the affairs of the Shia in their hands.

While everything was in order, the belief in the twelfth Imam was never shaken; NOUBAKHTI says that in the town of Qum, there existed a sect that believed in thirteen Imams. We have heard nothing of that kind, and know that all there believed and believe in twelve Imams. Everyone in books of narration claim that there existed scholars during the past two and half centuries to tell people about the Imamate of the twelve Imams.

Yes, a deeper look will show that a few who had turned aside from the original path in search of personal gains or to whom a deliberate deviation had taken far away from the track, later regret persuaded them and repentance returned them back to their right path and to which they adhered in fealty and stuck in faith.

B. Earlier to Ibn Babway and Nomani others like Fazi Bin Shazan (died 260) have written books about both the periods of the absence of the twelfth Imam. These books had appeared before the birth of Imam Hasan Askari. Mashikha Hasan Bin Mahboob (died 224) has also written about this subject. The writer too maintains that the two periods of the absence of the Imam has brought forward changes in the views.

We should point out here that both periods were of importance and of a new kind in the history of Shiaism but not in the sense that the theme of Shiaism varied with that of the past. These two periods further cemented the faith of those who were having a pre knowledge through the sayings of the Prophet (SAW) and the Imams.

The way of installing a proof or housing evidence was at variance among the lecturers. But at the same time they all depended on the traditions, that is, the sayings of the Prophet (SAW). Side by side they used reason as well.

This method of presenting or producing evidence of reason or logical proofs became wider and wider during the space of time. From the time of Shaikh Mofeed to the time of Allama Hilli and toward this method took an entity to itself. The proof for divinity, the evidence for prophet hood attained a wider range. Likewise, there is still a possibility that it may still go beyond. But the evidence of narration, that is, the narrative proofs remains what they had been because the words could be invented to install in the prophet's (SAW) sayings.

C. The absence of the Imam is reflected in a way to give an impression that to revolt against tyrant rulers is not an obligation on the people. Therefore, the scholars, that is, the Shia clergymen and their jurisprudents in association with the family of Boway did not oppose the caliphate of the Bani Abbas dynasty. They propagated Shiasm. If the Boway family (AALBOWAY) committed atrocities, Shias had no obligation to oppose it. It was only the right of the Imams to revolt or upraise against the tyrant rulers and their governments.

If the occultation of the twelfth Imam makes an upraising impossible then no upraising should take place and the concern should be only towards the protection of Shiasm. To bring down a government is the only right of the twelfth Imam.

Such an impression is quite wrong and misleading. First: Shias were in no circumstances and under no conditions obliged to bring down the governments of the Bani Abbas dynasty. Shias were and are obliged to obey the Imam. The Shia ponders, thinks and considers himself under the yoke of twelve Imams, individually and collectively. Even to this day the yoke of the Imamate of the twelfth Imam is around the neck of the Shia. Bani Abbas knew this. They knew that to bring down their government was not the responsibility of a Shia. It depended on the stand and outlook of the Imam of that time. Obedience of the Shia to their Imam, their love, affection, and faith in him was to Bani Abbas a dread and a matter to take into calculations and something to bestow consideration to.

On the other hand, the conduct, character, behavior, abundant knowledge, truth, honesty, uprighteousness, straightforwardness, endurance, tolerance, forbearance, and forgiveness of the Imam was in itself an element and a factor that weakened the Bani Abbas politically, socially and morally. This the Bani Abbas well knew that they very presence of the Imam, whoever he be, was their own weak point because his existence demonstrated what he possessed and what they were deprived of.

Whatever qualities and abilities they had, the Bani Abbas caliphs were short of. They lacked. The people too witnessed the same what the Bani Abbas saw. The ability of the people to judge and compare could not be taken away from them. As they compared, they hated one and liked one; they hated one and honored one; they hated one and obeyed the other. This being out of their power, the Bani Abbas remained always uneasy, harassed, confused, and uncertain.

To secure their own rescue from this harassment the easiest thing to do was to detain the very object of fear. This they did. They imprisoned the Imams. They put them under home arrest. They implied secret agents, police to keep a watch on them. They broke the link of the people with them. Motawakkal brought the tenth Imam, Ali Al-Naqi, from Madina to Samerra so that he may keep a direct watch on him and control his every movement.

In any circumstance there was never the question that the Shia would revolt. In the days of the tenth and eleventh Imams, Ali Al-Naqi and Hasan Askari, there was no probability of any such thing. It was a general belief that it was up to the Imam to decide what to do. But there was a strong belief running among Shias that each Imam did what he was under commission to do.

The Prophet (SAW) had a charted and the programme by the command of God for every Imam, framing his responsibility. So, every Imam in his time acted and behaved accordingly. This secret chart was transferred from one Imam to the other. The other factor to be considered is this, that in those days conditions had become so bad and the people were in such a low mentality that there was no preparedness on their half to consume a change. In such a probability of failure it was wise to avoid the upraising. Its consequences would have been more futile and reverse rather prolific and useful.

The Bowihian's stand did not totally discard the caliphates of the Bani Abbas dynasty although they took the helm of affairs in their hands. They installed a caliph and they even dismissed a caliph. But they did not declare their disagreement with the machinery of the caliphate. Had they done so they would have had to confront a huge front of opposition of Sunnis. A total chaos would have entailed posing a general danger to Shias. Any change in their stand would have reflected a religious basis for that change. To avoid Bani Abbas and appoint an Alawi caliph was tantamount to the continuation of the same trend. Some say that the interests of AALBOWAY was in keeping the Bani Abbas dynasty in order to retain their own power. Anyway, AALBOWAY was neither to do nor think of any other way.

This should not be forgotten that in the time of the absence of the twelfth Imam some of the Bani Abbas clan was not bad towards the Shia. They even pretended to be Shia. Naseruddin Allah was a scholar among the caliphs of Bani Abbas. He believed in the Imamat of the twelfth Imam and in his absence. He even considered himself as the deputy of the 12th Imam.

There runs a theory that no one has a right to revolt against tyrant governments during the absence of the 12th Imam. This is absolutely wrong. To upraise against tyranny in the event of possible conditions is in jurisprudence an obligation. This obligation becomes a general one in case the tyranny of a ruler happens to consume one's property, life, or one's honor so that all people should go to the victim's help. To defend against a tyrant needs no sanction of a religious jurisprudent.

Defense is a sacred liability. To defend a Muslim, or to defend a Muslim society is obligatory no matter whether the enemy be an outsider or one from inside. For example the ex-shah of Iran wanted to change the Islamic identity of Iran. So to defend such a danger becomes a liability. In jurisprudence these questions are discussed, the defense or the effort to oppose the tyranny of a ruler who is not a jurisprudent or a believer. These issues during the period when the Imam is absent are decided by the Shiy of jurisprudence. In the span of the absence of the twelfth Imam the tyrant governments in certain conditions become compulsory to be brought down.

D. The motive of ALLBOWAY in their upraising obviously was political with lust for power. But it can not be waived off that originally they should have been motivated by religious matters or the atrocities committed against the Shia might have incited them to revolt against the tyrant rulers.

On the ground that their upraising was contrary to Shia religious standards we can not condemn them. There are several considerations. When their upraising had succeeded their behavior in general and that of some of them in particular was far better than all their predecessors. They even surpassed in their compe- tency and good conduct with others. The rulers among them showed no enmity with the Shia. They were jealous and very much enthusiastic towards propagating the Shia belief and at the same time advertent enough to not encroach the Sunni sanctity. In other words they had brought freedom for the Shia and obliterated those conditions that necessitated the TAQIA (concealing one's belief).

In any case, their policy was not to invalidate the Sunnism or to crush any other religion. They did quite the opposite to what their predecessors had done. They provided liberty for Shias and also opened avenues for them to enter any government service. AAL BABWAY nullified the previous policy for restricting Shias in every aspect of social life. So, they in fact protected Shiasm and helped it. What they gave to others by way of freedom they gave to Shias as well. Because of the equity, which they maintained with the Shia, they were accused of religious bigotry. However, we are not here to defend the AAL BABWAY>'s policies. This can not be denied that they too were a dynasty, which appeared on the political scene and became recorded in history.

They differed with their previous rulers who were Sunnis and did everything against the Shias by way of harm. One of them was Motawakkel who even tried to annihilate the Shia belief. But the BABWAY dynasty did not act to take revenge nor did they adopt any negative attitude towards the Suni. They opened opportunities of jobs and propaganda to them. They were more human comparing to their predecessors like Motawakkel, Salahuddin Ayubi and Taqhrool Saljokhi. The Babway dynasty was in fact Shia.

They believed in IMAMAT and also the disappearance of the twelfth Imam. But they did not intervene nor did they interfere in religious matters. What they pondered they used to pronounce openly. The Shia clergymen coordinated with the BABWAY's harass on the basis that, in the politics people should not take part nor they should participate in revolts against the governments. This is wrong. The Shia religion does not dictate such a thing.

If we look from a political angle, the Babways were Shia. Therefore they felt themselves secure from any Shia revolt against them. Since they were good with the Sunnis if by any case the Shia were to make any upraising it would have been crushed by the forces adversary to the Shia thought.

All the political fronts of the Shias would have been lost. If Shia clergy would have revolted the result would have been the same. On the other hand, Babways had paved the way for the Shias to enter into jobs and have well stations in society. So, the Shia thought it prudent to support the BABWAY rules. In such circumstances the Shia clergy took to serve the expansion of knowledge and the propaganda of the Shia ideology and at the same time made it obligatory upon themselves to support the BABWAYS.

As things took shape an understanding opened its umbrella shadowing the Shias and the BABWAYS without these being a contract or an agreement. Their understanding was the result of the security which the BABWAY rulers felt at the hands of Shia, and the contemplation of the Shia clergy that the harm of a revolt would be more than the gain. To not make a movement was a religious conviction to one party while to the other a good prudent policy to honor that conviction.

In any case let us pronounce that we can not repudiate the legitimacy of their rule, at least, some of them.

37. The absence from the view of narrators

Difference in the date has opened avenues to the writer to tell what his lust is and to say what is his wish and to write what is his pleasure. Yes, there is a difference; So what? Does this difference change anything? Does it bear on any dimension? The beginning of the Imam hood (IMAMAT) of the 12th Imam is in the very year 260. To penetrate deeper we see that the very pregnancy of his mother remained unnoticed. Miraculously it was a concealed matter. Then, his birth; this too was a secret known only to very few close ones.

In other words, this Imam ever since he began life either in the womb of his mother or in the vast of this universe, either as a babe or as an infant, a veil surrounded, concealing him or any sign of his or any symptom that could indicate his whereabouts or his existence. He was destined to remain under the veils of secrets.

It was for the absence to steal his presence into disappearance. He is in reservation kept most cautiously by the Divine for the future. Several curtains should hide him under the guard of wonder and the vigilance of surprise. Several hands of doubt collectively could not lift any of the curtains nor could a deliberation peep through it. The mystery is beyond the ken of human, and the ambit of the calculation of two and two is four, because God's job can not be circumferenced by our understanding.

He is that treasure which should be kept secret till time is ripe, till sight can tolerate the fire of its diamond. His absence was a calculated affair. The Imamate of the Imams had its cycle and Imam Hasan Askari was still peddling it. So, it is wrong to suppose that the era of the Imamate had ended. When the eleventh Imam was still alive the era was alive too. In the year 260 the martyrdom of Imam Hasan Askari put an end to an era and opened a new one. The twelfth Imam took the office. Then he went into hiding. Then he appeared. Then he went into hiding.

38. The view of Narrators about the issue of the Imam's disappearance: The writer says that the first time the term GHEEBAT (absence or disappearance) was introduced, it was in the book by the name of KAMALUDDIN. he says that it is likely that Qulaini too might have explained such a thing earlier.

First fact is regularly being ignored time and again, forgotten by the writer, that the sense and the meaning of GHEEBAT was already a known fact, as it was in the traditions and the narration that have hailed immediately from the Prophet (SAW) and the Imams. So, the occurrence of such an event GHEEBAT was an event not a surprise. The awareness of the people towards this fact is older than the book KAMALLUDDIN of Sadoq and the book KAH of Qulaini. They did not invent it but mentioned the traditions about it.

If anyone were to give an explanation of the OHEEBAT it could have been the same about Sadoq and Kafi have told in their books. Besides, those who have survived both the periods of the GHEEBAT (absence or occultation) have told the same thing and have narrated their experience. What was foretold, is narrated; and what was foretold took place.

39. The GHEEBAT of the 12th Imam - Two kinds:

Earlier to Nomani in the books of the Prophet's sayings and conversations (TRADITIONS) both types of the Imam's disappearance (GREEB AT) has been mentioned. There are some who have been written before the end of the short GHEEBAT. The writer now tells us in a way to suggest that when the GHEEBAT happened these books too appeared. Since he has no belief in the invisible or unseen (GHAIB) he should say so. He can even suggest that whatever is written is after the happenings although the Prophet might have foretold then.

He wants to accuse the great scholars who were great authorities such as Sadoq, Nomani and others of fraud and fabricating traditions. May God guide him.

The GHEEBAT was split into two periods - one a short duration, the other with an indefinite duration. The lengthy GHEEBAT was anticipated. Ali Bin Mohammed al-Samri and others were having a mental preparedness. Nomani and others consider the GHEEBAT as a sign attesting the Imam hood of Mehdi. The writer says that both kinds have had a root in the recent narration. The narration can not be new or recent. All of them are old because they relate to the time of the Prophet (SAW). If the writer knows let him specify which are the new ones and which are the old narration?

We can make not such that the narration of Imam Ali Bin Abi Taleb (AS) are older than those by Imam Hasan (AS) Imam Hussain (AS) or Imam Zainulabedeen (AS). Likewise what Imam Baqer (AS) has told is older than that which Imam Sadqq (AS) told. So this should be his sense, divided among the Imams in accordance to their order and periods. But, actually the fifth Imam, Baqer, is the first Imam who started a school in which he told many things explaining the legislation and other issues. The narration that hailed newly or recently relates to the period after the period of Imam Baqer (AS).

This issue is useful in distinguishing the dates or locating the duration of period with regards to narration and other religious jurisprudence. This standard can not be maintained after the period of Imam Askari. Usually the narration can be considered false if they come after the duration of the period of Imam Askari. But such a supposition can not be given to the narration that pertain to the GHEEBAT of the twelfth Imam because they were told in every age right from the Prophet's (SAW) time down to Imam Askari (AS). There was nothing to be added thereon or to be deducted there from.

Whatever the new authors have written they have depended upon the old authors. The interpretations and comments made thereon are all in uniformity because of the pedestal being one. There can be a difference in synonyms, such as short absence, little absence, long absence, lengthy absence, continued absence and so on.

These terms GHEEBAT SUGHRA (short GHEEBAT) and GHEEBAT KUBRA (long absence) were not invented in the era of Safavi. They have no bearing on the reality. There had been two periods. The narration can not be changed by the marginal diameters or spaces down by suppositions. Furthermore, belief can not be shaken as well. Any other interpretation would only show one's own mind and the extent of its listing to falsity the fact.

To invalidate a narration one should search the ground of that particular narration. If the narrators of that particular narration have any credibility reputation or a reliability that could creep in a catena of continuity up to the authority of Imam Sadiq (AS) reason would not approve its repudiation. What Noubakhti has written of the Shia sects should be something of prediction about the unseen future. To foretell what will happen in the future no one would claim, unless he should have prophecy, which no one has.

So, it is quite easy to tell what this imagination might bring to his mind. In such an event he has rejected the established traditions and acknowledged the realities of history. 40. The writer regarding the 2nd Ambassador says that it was a period of chaos and tumult in the history of the Shia. People were left adrift in an ocean of uncertainty knowing not where the stand is for them and to which shore they should land. The writer has magnified the things because he is looking through a microscope of prejudice.

Any little thing would appear to him big. The things were not as he is pretending to have been. A little commentary on his statements seems necessary. Chaos and tumult; they are a natural corollary of uncertainty. There were those who were faithful to their belief and ardent in their faith. They knew who their Imam were and who the present one was.

They also had pre-knowledge of the absence of the Imam as they had heard or read the Prophet's (SAW) sayings. It is a common practice to ask. They should have told as they should have been asked. Had there really been a chaos where was it? In the center town of the Shias in Qum we did not hear nor did we witness such chaos.

What the winter says come out to prove that the Shia belief of twelve Imams hails from a strong origin. The scholars, the thinkers and other personalities of the day were believers in the Imamate of the son of Imam Askari (AS) and in his occultation (GREEBAT). He refers to the ministerial families of BANI Furat and the relations of ABU SUHAIL NOUBAKHTI. This is the strength of a religion. The curiosity of the enemies should have tried to find out the fact. They could not establish otherwise. During the GHEEBAT a link of deputies with the Imam take his orders, it seems practicable as well as reasonable.

All the traditions about the GHEEBAT narrated by Shazan, Nomani, Kamaluddin are attested by sources of authority and based on evidence passed on from the Imams by the Prophet (SAW) himself. All these sayings were predictions, that is, years behind the events and the events far ahead the sayings. The Shias who were in various provinces and parts would not have accepted to revert, refer or consult to the NAWABS (deputies) of the Imam had there not been a cogent conviction for them.

There had been links that establish the connection with the Imam. It was a well-organised and systematic network of communication to the Imam and from the Imam. Ali Bin Babway, a man of thought and knowledge, writes a letter to the Imam through the NAWAB (Imam's deputy) and gets an answer through the same channel. Had there not been a truth in it a man of Ali Bin Babway's like would not have corresponded with the Imam. This in itself is proof.

The writer says on the authority of Fathia that a group of Shia believed in the Imamat of Jafer and many yielded to his authority. By saying so the writer wants to say what he, of course, does not say but means to say, however does not want to go that far. Well, we say that he means that Mahdi was fake Imam because of Jafer. Why does he not ponder the other way? Why wasn't Jafer a false Imam? The biography of Jafer was known to one and all. His reputation, his conduct his behavior, his temperament brought him no respect from the people. Therefore, he was immediately ignored although he was supported by the government of the day in order to create a rift and split. Those who gathered around him were the paid agents of the government.

Another mistake. The writer sees the Imam as an infant. But the consensus shows that the Imam had attained his boyhood.

The unity among Shias is of course due to a belief common among them. In a stock all are shareholders; and all are united too. The belief in the Imamate of the twelfth Imam has brought all Shias together. But the writer says that the Imam's deputies (NAWABS) had brought all together. Of course they were men of reliance and respect in all the Shia places. For example, Abulafer Omravi was very much respected. They were symbols of unity and honor of the Shia but not the reason for it. The Nawabs were only agents of the Imam. The cardinal and supreme factor was the very Imamate of Mehdi, which held the mosaic together. Today too this belief in Imamate holds the jurisprudents in awe and reverence and the deputies of the Imam.

41. The Way the 3rd Ambassador selected:

It might be felt that the appointment of one ambassador depends upon the recommendation of his predecessor to the Imam or with a consensus of the Shia scholars or clergy. As the previous one appoints the new one. Such an air of conception hangs around the third ambassador Hussain Bin Rooh. But, the reality is something else. It is the direct choice of the Imam himself; an im- mediate selection by himself alone.

It was not a contract or agreement between the persons or parties. Since the man was appointed by the person of Imam Mehdi himself, the appointed one was highly respected and revered among the people - commons and dignitaries. It was a commonly known fact that the ambassador was the Imam's choice and in contact with him. Had it been otherwise, such men of repute such as Abu Suhail Noubakhti, Ibn Mateel, Hasan Bin Jana Nasibi would have disputed and never obeyed the ambassador.

42. THE FOURTH AMBASSADOR AND THE END OF THE PERIOD OF HIS EMBASSY

The long absence (GHEEBAT KUBRA) was an anticipated one during the short one (GHEEBAT SUGHRA). In that period books too were written about this subject. No ambassador was appointed after Ali Bin Mohammed Saruri. The reason is not known. It could be that the Imam did not find a trustworthy one. It could be this that the Nawabs of the period of short GHEEBAT were to acquaint the people with the coming GHEEBAT that was going to be indefinitely long.

43. THE TOTAL GHEEBAT (OCCULTATION)

The confirmation of Mehdism of the twelfth Imam starts from this period as the last leader of the Moslems. Ever since the Shias came to know that the Imam's appearance was not definite in the near future they took him to be their Mahdi.

We should correct him. He was the twelfth Imam known to all and acknowledged by all. It was not a condition that he should go into hiding in order to become Imam. For an Imam, disappearance or hiding is not a necessary condition. But that he was the Mahdi promised by the Prophet (SAW) was a thing not certain. Of course, it is a common thing to have an existence of doubt in the minds. Every issue in accordance with its magnitude is shaded by doubt or there are some whose business is to create doubts. Therefore, this should not be denied that the short period of the Imam's absence and the beginning of the long period have been covered by doubts. The scholars should pay heed in this respect to furnish the facts so as to obviate he doubts and present the subject in the minds in a clear picture.

44. Rise of a Question:

The writer raises a question as to when and how the representation of the Imam (Mehdi) is vested to the jurisprudents indirectly and with full distinctions. How has he comes to such an interpretation?

A simple thing becomes complicated because of the reasoning the writer has resorted to. The link of the defeat of the Ullama (clergy) against the governments of AAL BABWAY, SAFAVI, and KACHAR is connected here. The issue of the jurisprudents being the oracles for the people in the times of GHEEBAT, short or long comes into the light from two dimensions. The vital importance goes to the establishment of a link with the Imam by any means if not direct.

One: God's commands are to be understood so as to be acted upon. If in the time of the Prophet (SAW) or any of the Imams a man could not reach any of them he would then go to a clergy so as to ask his questions and learn what he has sought out to learn. This is a reasonable solution. Therefore it is only reasonable that during Imam Mahdi's occultation the same would happen. The question that has been brought up as to what period the jurisprudents actually became oracles for the people are not a sensible one.

In the days of the Prophet (SAW) or the Imams or in the days of GHEEBAT any one who had a high knowledge on religious issues stood as an authority to be referred to. It was not limited to a certain time or place Knowledge can not be limited to a time or space. One who has a through knowledge of a subject stands as a guide whenever referred to and by whosoever.

Two; An oracle is an administrator of a society or a leader of a society, because he meddles in disputes, solves their problems, gives opinion in their differences and judges their quarrels and attends their various difficulties. In such a dimension, the jurisprudents before the time of Imam Hasan Askari (AS) had an active part. It was obligatory for the people to contact them. For a jurisprudent the government of the Imam is valid. A jurisprudent is in his place a representative of the Imam. This is an issue purely of jurisprudence.

The guardianship of a jurisprudent is a second grade authority which descends from the absolute authority of the Imam. In this regard there is no general agreement among the scholars. Some consider the guardianship of the Ullama (clergy) not fixed because they do not think that there is enough proof. Is'haq Bin Yakob says that the uncertainty could run into events, as well as certain things which could not be determined. The deputies of the Imam had a general responsibility. They had no intention to collect money. The writer is accusing a group of good people without feeling the least moral responsibility.

The guardianship of the jurisprudents is absolutely necessary. Whether some believe it or not, their being representatives of the Imam they all agree that on some matters no one other than a jurisprudent can have guardianship. To command the people towards virtue, to restrict the people from evil is the responsibility of a jurisprudent. But the actions of a jurisprudent are regarded as final and to be honored. The governments and their power or authority over the people is a thing religiously illegal. Therefore, the governments are regarded as tyrants. In this description all governments are alike whether BABWAYS, SAFAVIS, KACHARS.

The writer thinks that the text of the tradition as told by Is'haq Bin Yakob was deviated in later days. We tell him he is wrong.

The versions might differ in words but the text remains the same. One thing which waives off the writer's wrong conception is; In the text, there is a word in Arabic, "ALAIKUM" or "Upon them" which makes no sense in the age of total occultation (GHEEBAT) of the Imam, because there is no link, no NAWAB, nor deputy, and therefore no link with the Imam.

This pronoun 'ALAIKUM' better suits the days of short GHEEBAT. We suggest that it should be translated as 'UPON YOU'. The writer has not attended these little things because of his over happiness in having gained something more important. Such examples abound. The translation of BIHAR has rendered the word 'ROWAAT' into jurisprudents, while such does not exist in the writings of Majusi.

This is in the days of Kachar. The word "ROWAAT" is not in the Arabic text of BIHAR because it was not necessary. The writer now takes this and uses it as a weapon in which to accuse the Shia writes in interpreting the traditions as time fits. Our readers can judge for themselves whether to come to such a conclusion is just or unjust.