The truth about the Fatimid

At the end of time, a man from the family of the Prophet will appear.

He will strengthen Islam and make justice triumph. The Muslims will follow him. He will dominate over the Muslim realm.

He will be called the Mahdi.

Following him, the Antichrist will appear, together with all the subsequent signs of the the Day of Judgment, as established in the Sahih.

After the Mahdi, Jesus will descend and kill the Antichrist.

Or, Jesus will descend together with the Mahdi, and help him kill the Antichrist, and have him as the leader in his prayers.

Evidence for this matter has been found in the traditions that religious leaders have published. They have been (critically) discussed by those who disapprove of (the matter), and have often been refuted by means of certain (other) traditions.

The more recent Sufis have another theory and a sort of argument concerning the Fatimid. They like to base themselves upon the removal (of the veil, kashf), which is the basis of their various (mystical) paths.

We are now going to mention here the various traditions concerning (this matter). (We are also going to mention) the attacks upon these traditions by those who disapprove (of the matter), and the evidence upon which they base their disapproval.

This, then, will be followed by a report on the statements and opinions of the Sufis. Thus, the true situation will become clear, if God wills.

We say: “A number of religious leaders have published traditions concerning the Mahdi, among them at-Tirmidhi,789 Abu Dawud, al-Bazzar, Ibn Majah, al-Hakim, atTabarani, and Abu Ya’la al-Mawsill.

They mention a number of the men around Muhammad as transmitters of these traditions= ‘Ali, Ibn Abbas, Ibn ‘Umar, Talhah, Ibn Mas’ud, 796 Abu Hurayrah, Anas, Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, Umm Habibah, 798 Umm Salimah, 799 Thawban, 800 Qurrah b. lyas, 801 ‘Ali al-Hilali, 802 and ‘Abdallah b. al-Harith b. Jaz 803 among others. (They also mention) their chains of transmitters, which have often been found objectionable by those who disapprove (of the matter).

We shall mention this now, because hadith scholars acknowledge negative criticism to have precedence over positive criticism. If we find that some person in the chain of transmitters is accused of negligence, poor memory, weakness, or poor judgment, it affects and weakens the soundness of the tradition.

It should not be said that the same faults often affect the persons mentioned as authorities in the 2 Sahihs.

The general consensus of hadith transmitters confirms the soundness of the contents of (the two Sahihs) as presented by al-Bukhari and Muslim. The uninterrupted general consensus in Islam also confirms the acceptability of (the two Sahihs) and the necessity of acting in accordance with their contents. General consensus is the best protection and defense.

Works other than the two Sahihs are not on the same level with them in this respect.

How we have to proceed in discussing the transmitters mentioned in (the two Sahihs) is indicated in the statements of authoritative hadith scholars on that(subject).

As-Suhayli 804 reports with reference to Abu Bakr b. Abi Khaythamah 805 that the latter did a thorough job of collecting the traditions of the Mahdi. (As-Suhayli) said: “The tradition with the strangest chain of transmitters is the one mentioned by Abu Bakr al-Iskaf 806 in the Fawa’id alakhbar.

It goes back to Malik b. Anas, who had it on the authority of Muhammad b. al-Munkadir, 807 who had it on the authority of Jabir, 808 who said that the Messenger of God said: ‘He who does not believe in the Mahdi is an unbeliever, and he who does not believe in the Antichrist is a liar.’ He said something similar with regard to the rising of the sun in the west, I think.”

One could not find a more extremist statement. The soundness of his chain of transmitters between (Abu Bakr) and Malik b. Anas (also) is problematic. Abu Bakr al-Iskaf is considered by (hadith scholars) as suspect and as a forger of traditions.

With their chain of transmitters going back to Ibn Mas’ud, at-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawild have published the following tradition through ‘Asim b. Abi n-Najid, 809 one of the seven authoritative Qur’an readers, on the authority of Zirr b. Hubaysh, 810 on the authority of ‘Abdallah b. Masud, on the authority of the Prophet:

“If no more than one day remained of the world-said Za’idah 811 -God would cause that day to last until there be sent a man from me -or= from my familywhose name will tally with my name, and the name of whose father will tally with the name of my father.”

This is the recension of Abu Dawud. Abu Dawud did not add any remarks critical of it, and he said in his well-known Epistle 812 that everything to which he did not append critical remarks in his book was all right.

The recension of at-Tirmidhi has= “The world will not be destroyed until the Arabs shall be ruled by a man from my family, whose name will tally with my name.”

Another recension has= “… until a man from my family takes charge.”

He (at-Tirmidhi) states in connection with both recensions that it is a good and sound tradition. He also transmitted the tradition through ‘Asim, with a chain of transmitters that stops with Abu Hurayrah.

Al-Hakim said that the tradition was transmitted by ath-Thawri, Shu’bah, Za’idah, and other Muslim religious leaders, on the authority of ‘Asim.

He said:

“Everything transmitted by ‘Asim, on the authority of Zirr, on the authority of ‘Abdallah, is sound, according to the rules I have laid down for using information derived from ‘Asim as evidence, for he is an authoritative Muslim religious leader.”

However, Ahmad b. Hanbal said about ‘Asim that he was a pious man, a reader of the Qur’an, and a good and reliable person, but that al-A’mash 816 had a better memory than he. Shu’bah used to prefer al-A’mash to him for establishing (the soundness of) traditions.

Al-‘Ijli said:

“There was some difference of opinion about his (reliability) with regard to Zirr and Abu Wa’il.” 818 In this way, he alluded to the weakness of the material he transmitted on their authority. Muhammad b. Sa’d said= “He was reliable; however, he made many errors in his traditions.” 819 Ya’qub b. Sufyan 820 said= “There is some confusion in his traditions.”

‘Abd-arRahman b. Abi Hatim 821 said= “I said to my father= 822 ‘Abu Zur’ah 823 says that ‘Asim is reliable.’ My father replied:

‘He does not fall into that category. Ibn ‘Ulayyah discussed ‘Asim (adversely) and said= “Everyone named ‘Asim has a bad memory.”’” Abu Hatim said= “So far as I am concerned, he falls into the category of truthful transmitters whose traditions are all right.

But he was not a (great) hadith expert.”

An-Nasa’i expressed a different opinion about him. Ibn Khirash 8 27 said:

“His traditions contain things that are unknown.” Abu Ja’far al-‘Ugayli 828 said:

“There was nothing the matter with him except a bad memory.” Ad-Daraqutni said:

“There was something the matter with his memory.” Yahya al-Qattan 830 said: “I have never found a man named ‘Asim who did not have a bad memory.”

He further said: “I heard Shu’bah say= ‘We were told by ‘Asim b. Abi Najud’ “-reporting the identical tradition. Adh-Dhahabi 831 said= “He is reliable in his reading of the Qur’an, but not quite reliable in his traditions. He is a truthful person who commits errors in judgment.

He is ‘good’ in his traditions.” Were someone to argue that (al-Bukhari and Muslim) published traditions of his, (we should reply that) they published them when there were also other (authorities for the same tradition), and that they did not use him as their basic authority.