Q:) Is
it a authenticate hadith that Imam mahdi
will come during the month of ramadan and
also there will 2 eclipse?
A:)
A Narration does appear in some books of
hadith that a dual eclipse shall occur
during the Ramadaan of the year in which
Imam Mahdi is scheduled to make his
appearance. For the benefit of readers, I
reproduce the text and commentary of this
particular narration:
Imam Ali bin Umar Dar-e-Qutni states in
his collection of ahadith: ?My Ustaad Abu
Saeed Istakhri narrates from his Ustaad
Muhammad bin Abdullah, who narrates from
his Ustaad Ubaid bin Ya?eesh, and he
narrates from Yunus bin Bukair, and he
from Amar bin Shamir, and he from Jaabir
who narrates that Muhammad bin Ali said:
'Verily, for our Mahdi there are two
signs which have never as yet concurred
since the creation of the heavens and
earth; first is the eclipse of the moon on
the first night of Ramadan, and second is
the eclipse of the sun during the middle
of that same Ramadan. This (concurrence of
a solar and lunar eclipse) has never
happened since Allah created the heavens
and earth.'
(Dare Qutni vol.2 p.65)
THE CHAIN OF TRANSMISSION:
Sanad or Isnaad are Arabic terms which
mean the chain of transmission through
which a hadith or narration is
transmitted. In order to verify whether a
hadith or narration is authentic and
reliable, the narrators whose names appear
in the sanad are scrutinised. This
procedure, known in Islamic terminology as
Jarah wa Ta'deel, was used extensively by
the Imams and Muhadditheen of old. They
have set out a code of conduct according
to which they examined and critically
analysed the narrators of any hadith. If
even one Raawi (narrator) is discovered to
be unreliable or untrustworthy, the entire
narration becomes seriously suspect. Such
a hadith or narration can never be
accepted as a basis for any Islamic belief
or practice. They adopted this procedure
in order to prevent fabrications and false
narratives from creeping into the pristine
pure teachings of Islam. It has quite
rightly been said: ?If these chains of
transmission were non-existent then
everyone and anyone would say what they
like.? Upon studying the chain of
transmission quoted above we firstly
notice that this sanad does not reach
right up to Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi
wasallam. It stops on Muhammad bin Ali,
the great-grandson of Ameerul Mumineen
Hazrat Ali radhiyallahu anhu. Such a
narration, where there is no direct link
with Rasoolullah sallall?hu alaihi
wasallam, is termed Munqati?, and most
Ulema do not regard such a transmission as
tenable proof for any Deeni practice or
belief. Secondly, two names appear in this
chain, viz. Amar bin Shamir and Jaabir.
Let us now study statements of the
Muhadditheen regarding the authenticity
and integrity of these two:
The
author, Imam Dare Qutni himself, after
quoting this narration, singles out these
two figures in the chain of transmission
and states: ?Both are unreliable
narrators. Their narrations are not
admissible as proof to substantiate any
claim.? (Dare Qutni vol.2 p.65)
Allama Zhahabi, a great authority on
hadith has the following entry in his
famous critique, Meezaanul I'tidaal:
Amar bin Shamir: A Shia from Kufa. Yahya
(bin Mu'een) says: (He is) a non-entity.?
Jauzjaani says: A misguided impostor. Ibni
Hibbaan says: This man is a Shia who
insults the Sahaba, and fabricates
narrations in the name of authentic Ulema.
Imam Bukhari says: His narrations are
rejected. Yahya says: His narrations
should not be recorded. Suleimani says:
This Amar used to fabricate narrations for
the Shias. Imam Nasaai says: His
narrations have been discarded.
(Meezaanul I'tidaal vol. P.268)
Allama Ibni Hajar quotes the following in
his work, Lisaanul Meezaan: Ibni Abi
Haatim says: I asked my father(Abu Haatim)
about him (Amar bin Shamir), and he
replied: His ahadeeth are totally
rejected, a weak narrator, a person one
should never get involved with. The
Muhadditheen have forsaken him. Abu
Abdullah Haakim (a high ranking authority
on hadith) states: He has many
fabrications narrated from Jabir Ju?afi,
and no-one else besides him (Amar bin
Shamir) narrate these blatant fabrications
from Jabir.
(Lisaanul Meezaan vol. P. 367)
From the above it is evident that this
narration is very weak and flimsy, and
cannot serve as the basis for any firm
belief or practice. You will notice many
signs attributed to Imam Mehdi's
appearance in the books of hadith, which
are derived from extremely weak, unsound,
and doubtful narrations. Some of these
appear to come from Shia sources, of which
the above is a typical example. Note the
words, Verily, for our Mahdi..... The
Shiahs have their own concept of a Imam
Mehdi, which differs vastly to what the
Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama-ah believe and teach.
Apart from the above, let us consider some
other aspects to this narration. Assuming
that the narration is sound and good, the
content matter is difficult to reconcile
with scientific evidence (which we are
presently using to figure out these
signs). It states that the lunar eclipse
will occur on the first night of Ramadaan.
Now it is common knowledge that lunar
eclipses only occur when there is full
moon, and that can be on the 13th , 14th ,
or 15th nights of the Islamic month.
According to the information obtained from
the Observatory, the lunar eclipse will
occur on 9 November, and that should be
somewhere in the middle of Ramadaan.
Logically too, one cannot imagine an
eclipse of the new moon (which too many
may happen every month when they go out to
sight the moon!).
Secondly, this particular concurrence of
eclipse, I believe, will not be visible
from the same belt of earth. The lunar
eclipse on November 9, 2003 will be
visible from America, Africa, and Europe,
while the solar eclipse on 23 November
will be seen from Antarctica (of all
places). For this sign to be accepted,
both eclipses must be seen from the same
belt of earth, and in particular, from
Arabia, for this is the context of this
sign of Imam Mehdi. It seems that this is
not the case with this particular eclipse.
When I enquired from the same Observatory
several years ago about the same
phenomenon, they replied that a dual
eclipse is not uncommon and happens often.
(That is, at different parts of the world)
They provided some charts which depict
different areas where both solar and lunar
eclipses will occur over the next two
decades (i.e. up to 2015), advising me to
study these charts. Apparently they were
too busy to enlist places and dates where
a dual eclipse was to occur. Nonetheless,
this observation of the Observatory (if
you'll excuse the pun) that such a
happening is not uncommon means that you
will frequently find a situation when in
one area of the world there is a solar
eclipse and, concurrently, at another
place there is a lunar eclipse. This, of
course, can and does happen frequently.
They further stated that a dual eclipse
from the same belt of the earth is less
frequent. Well, if you can recall, in June
1992, here in South Africa we had a
similar experience of a lunar and solar
eclipse in the month of June, for which we
even offered Salaatul-Kusoof in the Musjid.
Both were visible in South Africa.
Thirdly, the signs attributed to Imam
Mehdi are all unique in their occurrence.
This dual eclipse, too, must be unique.
Yet, it appears that such a dual eclipse
in one month in the same area of the world
has already happened. The words in the
narration clearly state that "this has
never happened since Allah created the
world". So if we are to accept the
narration as it is, with an eclipse of new
moon and all, how do we reconcile this
statement when we have already experienced
a dual eclipse in one month? Yes, one
might say that such an event has never
happened before IN RAMADAAN, or that an
eclipse of the new moon has never yet
occurred, and it may be a "first". The
first is possible, the second (of it being
a "first") improbable, but the first is
dependent upon acceptance of the second -
first accept that eclipse of the new moon
is possible, then say it will happen for
the first time in Ramadaan.
Furthermore, a lunar eclipse is called
such because the entire moon is cast into
shadow, and that's what makes it so
dramatic. But the crescent at the start of
an Islamic month is already barely
noticeable, what's so grand about it not
being noticed at all? (Ask the people of
PE who go moon-sighting every month!)
Lets
move on to another aspect. Sorry for the
quick shift in line of thought, for
perhaps you may need time to sift through
my maze of confusion above. Leaving alone
the authenticity of such an event, what is
important is not to create hysteria among
people for no reason. Also, not to present
something of Islam which may turn out to
be false. The prediction we now discuss
was brought up several years earlier by a
certain Moulana. I believe some people,
after listening to his talk of the dual
eclipse in 2003 or 2004, actually intended
selling up and going to settle in Makka to
await the coming of Imam Mehdi. Now this
is not healthy for anyone. Besides, the
hadith shareef is very clearly THAT
IMAM MEHDI WILL APPEAR WHEN PEOPLE LEAST
EXPECT, AND THE FIRST GROUP OF ULEMA AND
BUZRUGS WHO TAKE BAY'AT AT HIS HANDS WILL
DO SO UNEXPECTEDLY. Now if this is the
case with the pious people who will be
honoured to take first bay'at at his
hands, do we think we can do better by
either searching out for him, or awaiting
his advent? This is something that will
take its natural course. None of the signs
are such that people can actually predict
them with accuracy. Yes, once it really
happens, then one can attribute it to the
Imam. Once Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Ali were
passing by a certain area of Iraq, on the
banks of the Tigris or Euphrates River.
The former remarked: "I've heard
Rasoolullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam)
speak of the treasures that this area will
throw up. Perhaps I should make an attempt
to unearth these treasures (thus
fulfilling the prophecy)." Ali (Radhiyallahi
anhu) said: "O Ameerul-Mumineen, forget it
and just keep walking ahead. These
treasures are not your department. Instead
a youth among the Quraish, who will be
called Mehdi, will see to this." This
incident proves that such signs must take
their fixed course and cannot be
pre-empted.
I believe that we should concentrate on
the signs that are chronicled in authentic
and sound ahadith, so that we are sure of
our teaching and belief, and we do not run
the risk of inadvertently endorsing a
Shiaconcept. Despite extensive research we
could not find any other hadith book
recording this event as given above,
besides the work of Imam Daare-qutni, from
which we have obviously quoted. Sometimes
the author will cite a narrative purely to
reject and criticise it, which I think is
what the author of Daarie-Qutni has done.
Also, all subsequent books that do mention
this event quote it from the same
Daar-e-Qutni.
Insha-Allah, an updated version of our
book, The Story of Imam Mahdi will soon be
handed in for publication. We shall be
referring therein to this incident.
Was-salaam
Siraj Desai
