Critique of the 18th Hadith from “Forty Hadiths on the Mahdiyeen” – Refuting the Alleged Yamani (Ahmed Al-Hasan)

Dar al-Hidayah | Nidham Al-Aqili, one of the official representatives of the alleged Yamani (Ahmed Al-Hasan), continues to cite hadiths from his book “Forty Hadiths on the Mahdiyeen and the Children of the Qa’im (AS)” to prove his group’s belief in 12 Imams from the children of Imam Mahdi (AS), known as the Mahdiyeen. This article examines the 18th hadith.

Nidham Al-Aqili’s core claims are:

• Imamate is not limited to twelve Imams.
• The Mahdiyeen, after Imam Mahdi (AS), hold the station of Wasayah (successorship) and Imamate.
• The Mahdiyeen are the Itrat (progeny) and children of Imam Mahdi (AS).

The 18th Hadith on the Mahdiyeen

Another hadith that Nidham Al-Aqili cites as his 18th proof is presented as follows:

From the Prophet (PBUH) that he mentioned the Mahdi (AS) and the goodness and victory that Allah Almighty will bring about at his hands. It was said to him: “O Messenger of Allah, will Allah gather all of this for him?” He said: “Yes, and whatever does not occur during his lifetime and his days will occur during the days of the Imams after him, from his progeny.”

Source: Sharh al-Akhbar, Vol. 2, p. 42

Critical Analysis of the 18th Hadith

First Point: The Unreliable Source – Qadi Nu’man al-Maghribi

Qadi Nu’man was a founder and legislator of the Ismaili sect. According to Fatimid narrators, he wrote nothing without referring to their Imams. Shi’a authors call him the “Abu Hanifah of the Shi’a.” He served al-Mahdi Billah (the first Fatimid Ismaili caliph) for 9 years, became a judge under al-Qa’im bi-Amr Allah, and rose to the highest rank of “Qadi al-Qudat” (Chief Justice) under al-Mansur Billah. According to Allamah Majlisi, Qadi Nu’man later became Twelver Shi’a. However, his books were written during his Ismaili period, entirely under the supervision of Ismaili Imams. Therefore, one can never use his books as evidence for such important matters of creed. Notably, for Qadi Nu’man, the term “Mahdiyeen” in Sharh al-Akhbar refers specifically to the Fatimid caliphs themselves.

Second Point: The Problem of “Mixed” Narration (Sharh Mazji)

A major issue with this book—frequently noted by researchers—is that it is often unclear which part is the actual hadith and which part is Qadi Nu’man’s own commentary. He continuously blends his explanations with the text (called Sharh Mazji). This is especially problematic when the hadith is unique to Qadi Nu’man. For example, in the 3rd hadith (from this same collection), the phrase “meaning, from the Imams of his progeny” was not part of the hadith but Qadi Nu’man’s explanation. Similarly, here it is not proven that the phrase “from his progeny” is part of the hadith. The narration may end with “Yes”, and the rest could be Qadi Nu’man’s addition, exactly as seen in the 3rd hadith.

Third Point: Textual Evidence – An Unrelated Explanation by Qadi Nu’man

Two lines earlier in the same source, Qadi Nu’man narrates a hadith where the Prophet (PBUH) mentions the Mahdi (AS) and is asked: “From whom is he?” The Prophet replied: “From us, the Ahl al-Bayt. With us Allah seals the religion as He opened it with us.” Then, Qadi Nu’man (following his habit of supporting Fatimid legitimacy) adds an unrelated commentary: “So the Prophet attributed that to himself because he is the first to establish it, and likewise, what the Mahdi establishes and what those after him from his children establish is attributed to the Mahdi…” This shows Qadi Nu’man gratuitously inserts mentions of the Mahdi’s “children” even when the hadith is clearly about the finality of Imamate with Imam Mahdi (AS).

Fourth Point: Possible Scribe Addition or Misplaced Pronoun

The phrase “and whatever does not occur during his lifetime and his days will occur during the days of the Imams after him” may be part of the hadith, but “from his progeny” likely is not. Since the concept of Raj’ah (return) is unique to Shi’a and not accepted by some, this word may have been added by scribes or narrators to justify Imams after Imam Mahdi (AS).

Fifth Point: The Pronoun Problem – “His Progeny” Could Refer to Ali (AS) or Husayn (AS)

Qadi Nu’man did not transmit the full narration, and the complete version exists nowhere else. He himself admits to narrating by meaning (naql bil-ma’na). Therefore, the pronoun in “from his progeny” most likely refers to Amir al-Mu’minin Ali (AS) or Imam Husayn (AS), who would have been mentioned in preceding phrases. Thus, the intended meaning could be: “…from the progeny of Amir al-Mu’minin (AS)” or “…from the progeny of Imam Husayn (AS)”. This strong possibility aligns perfectly with other authentic narrations. As long as the claimants cannot produce the complete, verbatim hadith, their argument remains incomplete and invalid.

Sixth Point: The Ismaili Pattern of Fabrication

The Ismaili Fatimid caliphs considered themselves the Mahdi and sought to preserve their rule. Thus, they desperately needed a theological solution to continue Imamate through the Mahdi’s children—specifically, their own caliphs. This motive led to the fabrication of such narratives throughout Ismaili history. Consequently, the Infallible Imams (AS) forbade Shi’a from approaching these groups, cursed them, and prohibited taking hadith from them. Twelver scholars and major traditionists followed this established practice of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS), refraining from narrating or accepting reports from deviant sects like the Zaydiyyah, Waqifiyyah, and Ismailiyyah. For evidence, refer to Kitab al-Ghaybah by Shaykh al-Tusi, where he refutes Ismaili and Waqifi fabrications, critiques their chains, and rejects their narrations. Therefore, Ahmed Al-Hasan (Ahmed al-Basri) is neither the first nor the last; all such sects merely copy one another, collaborating across generations of false claimants.

Conclusion on the 18th Hadith

The Nidham Al-Aqili 18th hadith Mahdiyeen argument fails on multiple grounds: an unreliable Ismaili source, mixed narration, probable scribal additions, ambiguous pronouns, and a clear history of fabrication to support Fatimid political ambitions. Thus, it provides no evidence for the alleged Mahdiyeen or the claims of Ahmed Al-Hasan.